Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we begin questions, I wish to make a short statement about the House’s sub judice resolution. Members will be aware of the recent deaths at HM Prison Parc, including two more deaths overnight. A coroner’s inquest has been opened into some of those deaths. These proceedings are now sub judice. While the sub judice rule can be waived, it is not to be done lightly, and for the time being no reference should be made to those proceedings in the House.
Members may ask about related issues to do with the health and safety of prisoners, and the security of the prison estate. But I urge hon. Members to exercise caution in what they say, and particularly to avoid speculating on the causes of the deaths of these men.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

20 mph Speed Limit: Impact on Road Users

Andrew Rosindell: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the impact of the 20 mph speed limit on residential roads and pedestrian streets in Wales on road users.

Bob Blackman: What recent discussions he has had with the Cabinet Secretary for North Wales and Transport on the impact of the 20 mph speed limit on residential roads and pedestrian streets in Wales on road users.

Luke Evans: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the impact of the 20 mph speed limit on residential roads and pedestrian streets in Wales on road users.

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Rosindell is not here, but will the Secretary of State answer his question, as it is the lead?

David Davies: Before I do so, Mr Speaker, may I fully support your ruling and send my deepest condolences to the relatives of all those who have died in prison?
May I make it absolutely clear that I, Conservative MPs, Senedd Members and councillors are supportive of a 20 mph speed limit in certain areas, such as outside schools, hospitals, old people’s homes or anywhere where there are vulnerable pedestrians? But the blanket 20 mph speed limit has had a detrimental effect on road users, users of public transport and businesses across Wales, and I call on the Welsh Labour Government to think again.

Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Clearly, there is a strong case for 20 mph limits outside schools, in shopping areas and in other areas where there is huge pedestrian activity, but a blanket ban is outrageous. Has he any detail as to the cost to the Welsh economy of this extremely damaging move, and, indeed, the cost of implementing it across Wales in such a blanket fashion?

David Davies: My understanding is that the vast majority of 30 mph roads are now 20 mph. I have seen a figure suggesting that it is around 96%—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, it is a blanket ban on 30 mph roads and that is exactly what the Welsh Labour Government put out there. I can give my hon. Friend an indication of the costs, because the Welsh Government’s own impact assessment suggested that this would cause a £4.5 billion hit to the Welsh economy and, on top of that, taxpayers have had to pay £30 million for 20 mph road signs.

Luke Evans: This is really concerning and I note that almost half a million people—a record number—signed a petition on the Senedd’s move, because they were so concerned about the impact that the measure will have. It cost £33 million to implement and now it is estimated that an extra £5 million is needed to unwind the changes. What conversations is my right hon. Friend having with the Welsh Government to ensure that we do not see such policies again?

David Davies: We certainly do not want policies such as this. There is an anti-motorist agenda with the Welsh Labour Government that includes not only 20 mph speed limits, but legislation bringing in tolls on the M4 and a ban on any major new road projects being built. We have even had Monmouthshire Labour Council suggesting that it might want to campaign to bring back Severn bridge tolls. The lesson is that if people support motorists and support the right to drive a car they should vote Conservative at the next general election.

Jim Shannon: On this illogical decision to pursue a 20 mph limit, does the Minister agree that there is a lesson to be learned for a Government—in Wales or elsewhere—trying to pursue something that the general public quite clearly do not want at all?

David Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He raises a very good point, because this was clearly done against the wishes of almost half a million people—a record number of people—who signed a petition on this matter. The most recent announcement by the Welsh Government, which raises the possibility of their doing a screeching U-turn on the policy, suggests to me that they might be more interested in deflecting national press attention from the scandal involving the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff Bay.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jo Stevens: If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the 25th anniversary this week of Welsh devolution—delivered by a Labour Government. It has helped to nurture a confident, modern and outward-looking Wales, and Labour Members are proud of it.
Not a single one of the hon. Members who have raised questions on this issue lives in Wales, and the speed limit is not blanket, as the Secretary of State well knows. It is a bit like the Conservative councillor in Sunderland who set up anti-20 mph Facebook groups while campaigning for the limit in his own area. Meanwhile, a mother whose 11-year-old son was hit by a car near his school in Flintshire said that the 20 mph speed limit likely saved his life. Does the Secretary of State agree that her intervention represents an important endorsement of the Welsh Labour Government’s policy to protect lives, especially children’s lives?

David Davies: I, too, acknowledge the 25th anniversary of devolution. We were promised that it would deliver better schools, hospitals and public standards. What we actually have are the longest waiting lists and the worst educational standards in the United Kingdom, and a First Minister who is willing to take a £200,000 donation from a twice-convicted criminal. That is the record of 25 years of Labour-run Government in Wales.
I said straightaway that I am in favour of 20 mph limits outside schools, hospitals and other places where there are vulnerable pedestrians. I do not like the blanket ban that has been imposed as part of the anti-motorist agenda of the Welsh Labour Government.

Jo Stevens: It is rich of Government Members to chunter about donations. How much of Mr Frank Hester’s millions is bankrolling the Conservatives’ general election campaign? This is a man who said that a black woman MP in this House “should be shot”.
On roads, does the Secretary of State agree with his own association deputy chairman, writing in ConservativeHome this week, that politics in Wales is a “cul-de-sac” for the Tory party? The Welsh public do not like divisive politics, and they do not like Wales being constantly talked down by the Tories. Is that why they have not won a domestic election in Wales for over a century?

David Davies: I remind the hon. Lady that we just got more votes than the Labour party in my constituency of Monmouth in the police and crime commissioner elections. What people in Wales want is public services, waiting lists and education standards that match what is being delivered by this Conservative Government in England, and standards in public life that reflect what we expect from Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. That is not what we are getting under the Welsh Labour Government.

Biodiversity: Rivers and Streams

Barry Sheerman: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the biodiversity of Welsh rivers and streams.

Fay Jones: Water is a devolved matter in Wales, and therefore rivers and streams in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Government. The UK Government recognise that rivers are an essential part of our natural environment. That is why we are working on the UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister fess up to the fact that the real scandal in Wales is that the UK Government keep denigrating a good Welsh Government that in terms of biodiversity and so much else are better than the rest of the UK? On biodiversity, they are three times better than England. Is it not about time that we got a few Welsh ideas and Welsh leaders to help us clean up our act and our rivers?

Fay Jones: That was a good attempt, but I simply cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman more. It is this Government who forced water companies to provide £56 million towards investment in the storm overflow network, improving water quality across England. In Wales, the picture could not be more different. The average number of sewage spills per outflow is 38; in England, it is 23. Our record speaks for itself.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Stephen Crabb: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for clarifying the sub judice rules in relation to Parc Prison. MPs across south Wales were disappointed that the urgent question was declined yesterday, but we understand why. We will continue to seek answers and to scrutinise Ministers over these deeply distressing events, and the way the prison is being run.
Thousands of Pembrokeshire residents continue to have their lives blighted by air pollution and fears about water pollution from the Withyhedge landfill site. Given that the Ministers in Wales who are responsible for overseeing the public health and the environmental regulatory response both voted last week to block an independent investigation into the financial dealings between the owner of that site and the First Minister, how on earth can my constituents have confidence that their concerns will be addressed impartially and the problems resolved?

Fay Jones: My right hon. Friend lives this issue on a daily basis, and I commend him for highlighting the plight of his constituents, who have to endure the impact of such devastating environmental pollution. Any way we look at it, this donation stinks, and it is shameful that the Welsh Government are evading scrutiny on the issue. His constituents can have no confidence that this matter will be investigated. There is no independent scrutiny here. Labour Members should explain why they are scared of scrutiny on this question.

Cost of Living

Liz Twist: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Wales.

Wayne David: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Wales

Patrick Grady: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of increases in the cost of living on people in Wales.

David Davies: The UK Government fully recognise the challenges posed by cost of living pressures that have come about as a result of covid and the invasion of Ukraine. That is why they have committed to the triple lock on pensions for this Parliament, increased the living wage, benefiting 140,000 people in Wales, and put an average £701 back into the pocket of a typical worker in Wales through national insurance cuts.

Liz Twist: The Trussell Trust says that one fifth of people in Wales have cut back on or skipped meals in the last 12 months. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with supermarkets about holding down the cost of food for customers?

David Davies: I know that many supermarkets are supporting food banks within their local areas, and the UK Government have certainly supported those with the least by making sure that pensions, benefits and the minimum wage all go up in line with inflation, and making extra payments on top to pensioners, those on benefits and households where there is disability. However, if the hon. Lady is truly concerned about cost of living pressures in Wales, perhaps she ought to ask her colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government why, on this very day, Welsh Labour Ministers are supporting a plan to create dozens of extra Senedd Members at a cost of £120 million—all money that could be far better spent on supporting those with the least.

Wayne David: Is the Secretary of State aware of a study by Citizens Advice Cymru indicating that more than half a million people in Wales are struggling to make ends meet? If he is aware, what is he doing about it?

David Davies: I have already outlined the extra payments that are being made to pensioners and those on benefits and disability, and the fact that pensions, benefits and the minimum wage have all gone up in line with inflation. On top of that, the UK Government have delivered five towns funds, four growth deals, three rounds of levelling-up funding, two investment zones, two freeports, an electric arc furnace in south Wales and an electrified rail line in north Wales—and what are we getting from the Welsh Labour Government? We are getting £120 million spent on extra Senedd Members. While we level up the economy, they want to level up the number of politicians in Cardiff Bay.

Patrick Grady: The Secretary of State mentioned Ukraine and covid as contributing factors to the cost of living crisis, but he forgot to mention Brexit—or is he going to try to argue that Brexit has somehow improved things and made goods and services cheaper for people in Wales?

David Davies: I would be only too delighted to mention Brexit, which was voted for by a majority of the United Kingdom and a majority in Wales, and point out to the hon. Gentleman that since Brexit the UK has grown faster than France and Germany. I could also mention wasting money on Scottish embassies all around the world, trying to build ferries that have not yet been floated anywhere, raising taxes and trying to shut down the oil and gas industry in Scotland as measures that are unlikely to help with cost of living pressures in Scotland.

Sarah Atherton: The Development Bank of Wales is supposed to be aiding businesses through cost of living pressures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable that one company received £400,000 from the bank, and was then able to give the First Minister of Wales £200,000?

David Davies: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point here. The Development Bank of Wales, which is owned ultimately by the Welsh taxpayers, should be there to support businesses through cost of living pressures. It was able to make a £400,000 loan to a company that was then able to turn round and add £200,000 back into a political donation to enable the First Minister to win the Welsh Labour leadership election. It is a very good question, but it is not a question for me; it is one that should be answered by those on the shadow Front Bench. On this matter, they have been very silent indeed.

Alun Cairns: Small businesses, particularly those in retail and hospitality, are directly affected by cost of living challenges coming from covid and the energy price spike from the Ukraine conflict. The Chancellor has, therefore, introduced a 75% business rate relief scheme in England, which is supporting businesses in England. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State share my concern that that funding is not being used to the same degree in Wales, and that business rates in Wales are only being relieved at a rate of 40%, so businesses are paying more in tax?

David Davies: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK Government made certain that the money for the business rate discount was passed on to the Welsh Labour Government, but instead of passing it on to the pubs, restaurants and small businesses that are so vital to communities in Wales, they have decided to spend it on other matters, such as the one they are voting on today. As a result, the average pub in Wales is paying thousands more in business rates than a pub just across the border in England. That is absolutely scandalous, and I urge the Welsh Labour Government to think about where their priorities are.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Jessica Morden: No contrition, then, in any of those answers from the Secretary of State, whose party has, by freezing tax thresholds, piled on £960 extra on average to the tax bills of around 400,000 pensioners in Wales. The Prime Minister has now made a totally unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance. Will the Secretary of State tell us how on earth the Government will pay for that, and will he rule out raising income tax by 8p or scrapping winter fuel payments to do so?

David Davies: We have made it clear that we want to keep the triple lock to ensure that pensions continue to increase in line with inflation. We will be able to afford that by ensuring that we get growth in the economy, which is why we wanted to end the double taxation system of making those in work pay extra money through national insurance tax. We have also made it clear that we will make tax cuts only when we can afford them, because on the Conservative side of the House, we do not believe in making unfunded promises in order to buy votes.

Liz Saville-Roberts: More than one in four children in Wales lives in poverty. Devolution has the capacity to transform people’s lives, but the current First Minister is distracted by questions about his integrity, deleting messages and taking dodgy donations. After 25 years since the start of devolution, does the Secretary of State agree that Governments at both ends of the M4 need to recommit to integrity and transparency?

David Davies: I can absolutely assure the right hon. Lady that this Government, and the Conservative party, are completely committed to integrity—[Interruption.] Labour Members are laughing, but their own First Minister took £200,000 from a convicted criminal—one who had received £400,000 from a bank for which the First Minister is responsible—and told the covid committee that all the messages on his phone had been accidentally deleted by the IT department, but now we see a screenshot in which he urges people to delete their messages so that they cannot be subject to a freedom of information request. Labour Members have the audacity to sit there laughing when people ask questions about standards. I say that the right hon. Lady makes a very good point: let us collapse the coalition and stop supporting the Welsh Labour Government, and then we can get a decent Government with decent values running Wales.

Liz Saville-Roberts: My party seeks to make a difference to the lives of the people of Wales, but the Secretary of State and I are in agreement for once when it comes to his judgments in relation to the First Minister. It screams hypocrisy, however, because the Tories in the Senedd voted against a Plaid Cymru motion to set a cap on political donations, and his party has still not returned a £10 million donation from a man who made racist and misogynistic remarks. In that spirit of open democracy, will he support a cap on donations to political parties?

David Davies: I will not sit here and start making policy on the hoof, but I say to the right hon. Lady—and I think she would agree—that I would not have taken hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations from somebody who had been convicted twice of environmental offences. If Labour Members are happy with that, it is a matter for them.

River Wye Action Plan

Philip Dunne: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the River Wye action plan.

Fay Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. The UK Government’s River Wye action plan will halt ongoing decline of the River Wye to preserve and restore that treasured river to the rating of favourable condition.

Philip Dunne: As the Minister has already said, the environment is a devolved matter, but nobody seems to have told the River Wye, which rises in Wales and crosses the border to merge into the River Severn in England. I very much welcome the River Wye action plan, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced recently. Has my hon. Friend seen any action taken by the Welsh Government to match the UK Government’s commitment to cleaning up the polluted River Wye?

Fay Jones: In the interests of time, I will give my right hon. Friend a very short answer: no. The Welsh Government have failed to come to the table time and time again on this issue, which is close to my heart as a constituency MP for the River Wye. That has been the missing piece of the puzzle, and it is why we are seeing no action in Wales.

NHS Waiting Times

Theresa Villiers: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on NHS waiting times.

Fay Jones: Healthcare is devolved to the Welsh Government, who have received record levels of funding to deliver on all their devolved responsibilities, receiving 20% more funding per person than in England.

Theresa Villiers: So many people in Wales are waiting longer for NHS care than people in England, and in a 12-month period, 40,000 people had to go from Wales to England for elective care. Does that not show that Labour’s claims to be better for the NHS are completely false?

Fay Jones: My right hon. Friend is entirely right: the NHS is not safe in Labour’s hands, and we have living proof of that in Wales. It is a great shame that when the Secretary of State for Health in England offered the support of the NHS in England to alleviate pressures on waiting times in Wales, the Welsh Health Secretary turned that support down. That is Labour’s record on the NHS.

Chris Bryant: One of the problems that a lot of my constituents have raised with me is that when they do get a letter calling them for an appointment—including one for which they have been waiting for some time—that letter arrives after the appointment date, because the Royal Mail is now delivering such an appalling service. Is it not time that we had a strong word to make sure that people who are being called for appointments get a chance to turn up to them, because they have actually received their letter on time?

Fay Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and one that I will certainly investigate with colleagues, but I think the problem lies with the mismanagement of the Welsh NHS, for which his party must take responsibility.

Victims of Crime: Support

Tonia Antoniazzi: What steps he is taking to help support victims of crime in Wales.

Fay Jones: The UK Government recognise the importance of victims having access to the support they need to recover from the impact of crime. That is why we are quadrupling funding for victim services, up from £41 million in 2010.

Tonia Antoniazzi: As a recent victim of crime, I know that one impact on victims is that it makes you reflect on how many crimes remain unsolved. The latest figures show that nine in 10 crimes in Wales went unsolved in the past six months, so what can the Minister say to the victims of the 82,000 reported crimes that went uncharged last year?

Fay Jones: First, may I say how sorry I am to learn that the hon. Lady has been a victim of crime? I know the experience she has gone through, and I personally send her my huge sympathies.
This Government have a proud record of delivering for victims of crime, whether through new pieces of legislation or the record headcount of police officers. Unfortunately, it was the Welsh Government who chose to reduce the number of police community support officers last year, which is having an impact on victims of crime.

David Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are all victims when senior Labour politicians make false and misleading statements at public inquiries?

Fay Jones: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is deeply concerning that a First Minister should reveal himself to have acted in such a way, which appears to be entirely contrary. I look forward to Welsh Labour Members calling for further scrutiny of that issue.

Future of Steelmaking

Matt Western: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the steelmaking industry in Wales.

Rachel Hopkins: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the steelmaking industry in Wales.

David Davies: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of subjects, including steelmaking in Wales. The Government are investing £500 million to retain steelmaking at Port Talbot and other Tata sites including Llanwern and Shotton, protecting 5,000 jobs and thousands more in the supply chain while increasing our economic security. At the same time, the Government have put aside £80 million for the transition board to spend on supporting anyone who loses their job in Port Talbot or in the wider community.

Matt Western: Whether it be the transmission pylons and lines needed to upgrade our power grid as demanded by the Winser report, or the prospect of building steel-based offshore wind platforms, the Welsh steel industry can and should be central to our transition to a net zero nation. When historic investments in green steel are being made by European competitors, does the Secretary of State recognise that the Government’s lack of ambition for Britain has let thousands of skilled workers down?

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of making sure there is a grid connection to enable an electric arc furnace to work properly. I have raised this issue with National Grid, and it has assured me that the grid connection can be made on time.
The hon. Gentleman makes a second reasonable point about the importance of being able to use steel produced in Port Talbot for floating offshore wind turbines. That is not the case at the moment because, as some of his Front Benchers seem to be unaware, the steel made in Port Talbot is coil, which is too thin to make those turbines. However, he will be pleased to know that there are discussions going on with one major investor to try to ensure that the steel produced from the arc furnace can be made in a way that could support floating offshore wind structures.

Rachel Hopkins: The sustainability of domestic automotive manufacturing is vital to the future prosperity of Luton’s local economy, so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the UK’s automotive industry about the effect of losing our sovereign virgin steel production on their supply chain costs?

David Davies: I have regular discussions with the automotive industry, and I have also had regular discussions with the steel industry across the United Kingdom. Some 90% of the grades that are currently produced by Port Talbot can be produced using an electric arc furnace, and there is work going on to ensure that the other 10% can be.
May I just remind the hon. Lady that we actually have a plan for Port Talbot? When Tata came to us, it was looking to close down Port Talbot and pull out of the United Kingdom, a move that would have cost 8,000 jobs and 12,500 in the wider supply chain. As a result of that, the UK Conservative Government stepped forward with half a billion pounds of investment to support an electric arc furnace, and a further £80 million to support retraining workers and infrastructure improvements in Port Talbot. We have had not one single penny from the Welsh Labour Government,  who instead have decided today to prioritise spending £120 million on more Senedd Members. More Senedd Members or support for steelworkers—I know what my priority is.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Kirsten Oswald: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 May.

Rishi Sunak: I know the whole House will join me in congratulating John Swinney on becoming Scottish National party leader and Scottish First Minister. I look forward to working constructively with him to deliver for the people of Scotland.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Kirsten Oswald: At last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, I highlighted the shocking rise in the number of teenagers trying vaping, and I asked the Prime Minister if he would take decisive action to stop vape advertising on football strips. He declined to do that. Since then, I have had an exchange with the Scottish chief medical officer, Professor Sir Gregor Smith, during a sitting of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, and he said:
“Where I become very uncomfortable, and I am not supportive, is where the massive attraction of sports companies is used in a way that promotes behaviours that are known to be unsafe or unhealthy.”––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 1 May 2024; c. 80, Q11.]
Can I ask the Prime Minister again: does he still think it is right that vape companies should sponsor football kits?

Rishi Sunak: I am glad the hon. Lady agrees with me and the Government that we should do more to tackle youth vaping, and that is why we are bringing forward measures in the new Bill to restrict the availability and appeal of vapes to children specifically, whether that is flavours or, indeed, marketing. As she knows, advertising of vapes is already heavily restricted by UK regulations, including a ban on advertising on television, radio and most places online. We have seen football take positive voluntary action in the past on issues such as this, but I will say to the hon. Lady that the Government will respond to her specific amendment in the usual way.

Sheryll Murray: I declare that my daughter is a serving officer in the armed forces.
In recent weeks, my right hon. Friend has announced plans to control welfare and get people back to work and to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and has passed legislation to get flights off to Rwanda. Does he agree with me that these are all issues that real people such as my constituents in South East Cornwall care about, and that the Leader of the Opposition should do the right thing and back them?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her local area, and can I also thank her daughter for her service in the armed forces? My hon. Friend is right: I am not surprised that Labour Members do not back our plans to stop the boats and I am not surprised they do not back our plans to get people into work and reform welfare, but I do think that they should do the right thing when it comes to the security of our nation, and that is to back our plans to increase defence spending and give our brave armed forces personnel the resources they need to keep us safe.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend, the new Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb)? After the representation that fine town has had recently, it is good to know that it has a proper champion back at last.
May I also warmly welcome the new Labour MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), to these Benches? If one week a Tory MP who is also a doctor says that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted with the NHS and joins Labour, and the next week the Tory MP for Dover—on the frontline of the small boats crisis—says that the Prime Minister “cannot be trusted” with our borders and joins Labour, what is the point of this failed Government staggering on?

Rishi Sunak: Can I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in welcoming his newest MP for Blackpool? He looks a lot happier than the Member sitting in that spot last week. Let me also join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in congratulating all new and paying tribute to all former councillors, police and crime commissioners and Mayors across the country. I hope that his new ones do him as proud as I am proud of all of mine, including such great leaders as Andy Street. They leave behind a strong legacy of more homes, more jobs and more investment, in sharp contrast to the legacy left by the last Labour Government, which was a letter joking that there was no money left.

Keir Starmer: In addition to losing two Tory MPs in two weeks, the Prime Minister has been on the receiving end of some of the biggest by-election swings in history. He has also lost 1,500 Tory councillors, half of his party’s Mayors and a leadership election to a lettuce. How many more times do the public and his own MPs need to reject him before he takes the hint?

Rishi Sunak: This time last year, I reminded the right hon. and learned Gentleman of some advice from his own mentor, Tony Blair, who said at the time that he
“can be as cocky as he likes about the local elections; come a general election, policy counts.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 152.]
One year on from that advice, what has he managed? He has £28 billion of tax rises, 70 new business regulations, 30 U-turns and a deputy leader under a police investigation.

Keir Starmer: I am surprised that the Prime Minister brought up a police investigation; his record is played one, lost—well, actually it is two, there was the seatbelt as well. His record is played two, lost two in relation to police investigations. The voters keep telling him that it is not good enough. Instead of listening, he keeps telling them that everything is fine, if only they would realise his greatness. He just does not get it, but at least after Thursday night he can go to the many places he calls home and enjoy the fruits of his success. In Southampton or Downing Street, he has great Labour councils. At his mansion in Richmond, he can enjoy a brand-new Labour Mayor of North Yorkshire. At his pad in Kensington, he can celebrate a historic third term for the Mayor of London. Now that he, too, can enjoy the benefits of this changed Labour party, is he really still in such a hurry to get back to California?

Rishi Sunak: I must say that I was surprised to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in North Yorkshire, although probably not as surprised as he was when he realised he could not take the tube there. I can tell him that the people of North Yorkshire believe in hard work, secure borders, lower taxes and straight-talking common sense. They will not get any of that from a virtue-signalling lawyer from north London.

Keir Starmer: It was great to be in Northallerton, where they have just voted to reject the Prime Minister’s proposition. He has finally found something in common with the British public: no matter where he calls home, all his neighbours are backing this changed Labour party. They keep rejecting him, because they have sussed him out. They know there is nothing behind the boasts, the gimmicks and the smug smile. He is a dodgy salesman desperate to sell them a dud. Sixteen days ago, when he held a press conference claiming victory on Rwanda, he said:
“The next few weeks will be about action…people want deeds not words.”
Let us test that. How many small boat crossings have there been since he said that 16 days ago?

Rishi Sunak: Actually, just before we get on to that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a changed Labour party—[Interruption.] This is important. He talked about a changed Labour party; he talks about it a lot. He also talked about his Mayor in London. Just this morning, we learned that the Labour Mayor in London believes there is an “equivalence” between the brutal terrorist attack of Hamas and Israel defending itself. Let me be crystal clear: there is absolutely no equivalence between a terrorist group and democratic state. Will he take this opportunity to demonstrate that the Labour party has changed? Will he condemn those comments from the Labour Mayor?

Keir Starmer: I know that was the last run-out before the general election, but the Prime Minister is getting ahead of himself in asking me questions.
I notice that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to answer the question. He knows the answer: since he claimed victory 16 days ago, there have been a staggering 2,400 small boat crossings. That is a gimmick, not a deterrent, and those 2,400 will be added to the Tories’ asylum perma-backlog, which is forecast to rise to 100,000 by the end of the year. The Prime Minister pretends that he will remove them all to Rwanda, but Rwanda can take only a few hundred a year. At that rate, his grand plan would take over 300 years to remove them all. There are tens of thousands of people with their claims going unprocessed, who will be here for their entire lifetime, living in hotels at the taxpayers’ expense. It is absurd to call that anything other than an amnesty handed to them by the Tory party, isn’t it?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had the opportunity to condemn the comments of his Mayor—a Mayor who said that there is an “equivalence” between Hamas and Israel—and he did not do that. Everyone will see: that is the changed Labour party right there.
Since I became Prime Minister, small boat crossings are down by a third. That is because we have doubled National Crime Agency funding, increased enforcement rates, closed bank accounts, deported 24,000 people  and processed more claims.[Official Report, 14 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 4WC.] (Correction) When it comes to border control, there is a crucial difference between us: the Conservatives want secure borders; the right hon. and learned Gentleman is happy with open borders.

Keir Starmer: The whole country knows that removing less than 1% of asylum seekers is not stopping the boats; it is granting an amnesty—a Tory amnesty. If the Prime Minister thinks the voters are wrong, that his own MPs who have joined the Labour party are wrong, and that anyone believes any of the nonsense that he spouts, why does he not put it to the test and call a general election?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about removing people—this is a person who campaigned to stop the deportation of foreign national offenders. That shows how out of touch his values are with the British people.
It is yet another week where we have heard nothing about the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s plan to do anything on the issues that matter to the country. Meanwhile, the Government are getting on with reforming welfare and getting people into work—he opposes it. We are controlling legal and illegal migration—he opposes it. And, as we heard, we are boosting defence spending to strengthen our country—he opposes it. That is the difference: he snipes from the sidelines; the Conservatives are building a brighter future.

Edward Leigh: When it comes to small boat crossings, there is a lot of talk of human rights, but surely the only human right and life that matters is the life of children who are being taken across the channel. In that respect, will the Government now do the only thing that will actually be a real deterrent and arrest and detain all those who land illegally on our shores and then offshore them promptly so that, once and for all, we can save lives and end this cruel and callous trade?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is right that these crossings are incredibly dangerous and risk people’s lives. Just weeks ago, a seven-year-old girl died attempting a crossing. That is why, as a matter of basic compassion, we must do everything we can to break the cycle of the criminal gangs.
That is why we need a deterrent. That is what the National Crime Agency says, and that is how we dealt with illegal migrants from Albania. It is only by removing people who should not be here that we remove the reason for them to come in the first place. That is how we will control our borders. It is clear that it is only the Conservative party that has a plan not only to stop the boats but to stop the tragic loss of life in the channel, too.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party leader.

Stephen Flynn: May I begin by also congratulating the fantastic John Swinney on becoming Scotland’s First Minister? Our opponents should be very careful what they wish for.
As we await the imminent Israeli incursion into Rafah, where 1.2 million people are sheltering, including 600,000 children, it has been reported that the United States has paused an arms shipment to Israel. The UK will now follow suit, will it not?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. Gentleman may not realise that the UK Government do not directly provide or ship arms to Israel. When it comes to the situation in Rafah, I have been very clear that we are deeply concerned about a full military incursion, given the devastating humanitarian impact; I have made that point specifically to Prime Minister Netanyahu whenever we have spoken. I will continue to urge all sides to focus on the negotiations at hand, to bring about a pause in the conflict, to release hostages and get more aid in.

Stephen Flynn: Let us be clear: the confidence that Israel has shown in its military ambitions in Rafah stems from the silence of its allies on the Front Benches in this place and elsewhere across the world. We all know that UK arms and tech are supporting Israel’s activities in Gaza, and will be used in any attack on Rafah. Knowing that, and the devastation that will occur, surely the time has come to end our complicity and halt arms sales to Israel.

Rishi Sunak: Of course we take our defence export responsibilities extremely seriously. That is why we operate one of the most robust licensing control regimes anywhere in the world. We periodically review advice on Israel’s commitment to international humanitarian law, and Ministers always act in accordance with that advice. That is crystal clear for the House to understand. Following the most recent assessment, our position on export licences is unchanged. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging all parties to engage in the negotiations, so that we can see a pause in fighting to get more aid in, hostages out and bring about a sustainable ceasefire in this conflict.

Martin Vickers: My constituents in rural villages and on the fringes of the Grimsby-Cleethorpes urban area are very concerned about overdevelopment. They recognise that highway infra- structure and public services are already overloaded. Could my right hon. Friend consider amending planning guidance, so that local plans and decisions taken by local planning authorities are not overridden by planning inspectors? They would be greatly encouraged if he would agree to meet me and my colleagues from neighbouring constituencies, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), to discuss this further.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right that sustainable development must be at the heart of the planning system. That is why we are committed to meeting housing needs by building the right homes in the right places, and protecting the environmental assets that matter most. The national planning policy framework is clear that we should be responsive to local circumstances. I know that the local plan in my hon. Friend’s area is due for further consultation later this year, and that he will engage with that process, but I will happily meet him and colleagues to discuss the situation further.

Edward Davey: The abuse suffered by 88-year-old Ann King at the hands of staff in her care home was captured on a hidden camera. The footage is stomach churning. Ann died in October 2022, and it took nearly a year for the Care Quality Commission  to launch a criminal investigation. Ann’s children are working to protect other care home residents from being subjected to such appalling abuse. Her son came to see me, as his MP, to ask for my help with their campaign. Will the Prime Minister join me in backing Ann’s law, a proposal for measures, including a national register, to professionalise the care workforce and hold abusive staff to account? Will he meet Ann’s family and me to discuss this idea?

Rishi Sunak: Let me first extend my sympathies to Ann’s family for what she went through. Obviously that is not appropriate, and I will ensure that the Department engages with the right hon. Gentleman and Ann’s family on the proposed law. He is right to say that we should have high standards across the care industry, and we are working towards more investment to support our care home staff, making sure that they have training qualifications and development, and that we have a regime that can hold everyone to account for delivering the high standards that we would all expect.

Sarah Dines: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest qualities that those on these Back Benches bring to Westminster is plain old-fashioned common sense? Derbyshire common sense led the good people of Ashbourne and surrounding villages to reject the Sadiq Khan ULEZ rules, and even the Welsh 20 mph rules. Will my right hon. Friend join me, and perhaps ask  his neighbour the Chancellor if he will pay for the Ashbourne bypass?

Rishi Sunak: I know that my hon. Friend has been a dedicated campaigner for the Ashbourne bypass. The Government are committed to investing more in the midlands, and in particular to putting every penny of the £9.6 billion from High Speed 2 back into the local area. My hon. Friend is right: we will focus on drivers and their priorities, rather than continuing the war on motorists that is being waged by the Labour Mayor in London, but also by the Labour party in Wales, with both the ultra low emission zone and 20 mph speed limits. It is this party that is unashamedly on the side of the motorist.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Our cross-party child of the north all-party parliamentary group found that expectant mothers  were terminating wanted pregnancies because they could  not afford another mouth to feed. Recent figures show that infant and child death rates have increased in the most deprived areas, and 50 children have died alone in unregulated accommodation. Is this the Prime Minister’s plan for a brighter Britain in action?

Rishi Sunak: Obviously, what the hon. Lady has described is a tragedy. No one wants to see children grow up in those circumstances, and that is why I am proud that since 2010, with a range of measures, the Government have overseen a significant fall in poverty, particularly child poverty. I will ensure that, for the benefit of her constituents, the hon. Lady is aware of all the support that is in place—through the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions, and through local authorities—for the most vulnerable families in our communities.

John Penrose: Weston-super-Mare is a growing town, so local health services are rightly growing as well. Weston General Hospital is treating more patients for a wider variety of problems than before, GPs’ surgeries are offering thousands more appointments this year than last, and our new diagnostic centre means faster tests and treatments. However, there is a fly in our NHS-prescribed ointment: dentistry is not fixed yet. The new dental recovery plan is very welcome, but when will it mean appointments that Westonians can book?

Rishi Sunak: Our dentistry recovery plan will make dental services faster, simpler and fairer for patients, funding about 2.5 million more appointments. I was pleased to note that access is improving in my hon. Friend’s area, with nearly 10% more children seeing a dentist in June last year than in the previous year, but we are going further: the new patient premium that was announced last year is ensuring that more NHS dentistry will be provided, and since then, at the end of January, 500 more practices have said that they are now open to new patients.

Chris Law: It is more than a month since the parliamentary ombudsman delivered the long-awaited report on pension injustices, but women born in the 1950s in my constituency, and indeed in every constituency across these islands, are still waiting to hear whether the UK Government will listen to its recommendations and deliver compensation. I was proud to see the Scottish Parliament support a motion last week calling for compensation to be delivered without delay, but utterly dismayed to see members of both the Conservative party and the Labour party abstain. Can the Prime Minister finally tell us when the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—the WASPI women—will receive the compensation that they rightly deserve?

Rishi Sunak: I understand the strong feelings across the Chamber about this topic, and the desire for urgency in addressing them. However, following the ombudsman’s five-year investigation, it is imperative that we take the time to conduct a thorough review of the comprehensive findings that have been published. An update will be given to the House once those findings have been fully considered. More broadly, we are committed to ensuring that pensioners have the dignity and security in retirement that they deserve. Most recently, we increased the state pension by £900 a year, thanks to the triple lock.

Philip Davies: Is the Prime Minister as appalled as I am by reports of militant civil servant and trade union political activists seeking to find ways not to implement the Rwanda deportations? Does he agree that if they are not prepared to implement the will of the Government and an Act of Parliament that was passed by both Houses, they should conclude that being in the civil service is perhaps not for them? Maybe they can look for alternative employment at other left-wing organisations that masquerade as  being impartial. Maybe they could try the BBC or “Channel 4 News”.

Rishi Sunak: My expectation is that civil servants will continue to be committed to supporting our priority of stopping the boats, and will deliver, in accordance with the civil service code. My hon. Friend will know that we made specific changes to ensure compliance with that code as we push through with our plans. More broadly, I agree with him that we are the only party that has a plan to stop the boats. We will face down all the obstacles in our way to deliver on this crucial priority for the British people, whoever stands in our way—whether it is the Labour party or others. We will deliver for this country on this vital issue.

Stewart McDonald: China has now hacked the data of defence personnel, the Electoral Commission and various other public institutions, and has targeted many Members of this House, yet plans by China’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, Ming Yang Smart Energy, to build its largest European facility right here in the UK advance at pace. The facility is set to be built in Scotland. Given widely shared concerns about the involvement of hostile states such as China in the UK’s critical national energy infrastructure, does the Prime Minister not agree that now is the time for this project to be paused and reviewed by the Government on national security grounds? If not, what message does he think that sends?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said repeatedly, China is a country with different values from ours, and is acting in a way that is increasingly authoritarian at home and assertive abroad. It is right that we take firm steps to protect ourselves against that, particularly in the area of economic security. This Government passed the National Security and Investment Act 2021 precisely so that we can screen transactions—without commenting on individual ones, of course—to protect this country. We have used those powers, not least to block Chinese investment in a sensitive semiconductor company, but also to ensure that the Chinese state nuclear company had no part in the future of our nuclear plan. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are alive to the challenges, and have passed laws that give us the powers to protect against them.

Shailesh Vara: Five-year-old Benedict Blythe was a lovely little boy who attended a primary school in my constituency. Sadly, he died of anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction. The coroner’s inquest has not yet reported, but on average, two children in every class have a food allergy, and more allergic reactions take place in school than in other setting outside the home. Severe allergic reactions are on the rise and can be fatal, yet there is no explicit legal requirement for schools to have allergy medication and an allergy policy, or for other recommended safeguards to be made available; there is only guidance. Will the Prime Minister meet me and Benedict’s parents, Helen and Pete, so that we can discuss a way forward to ensure that children who suffer from allergies can be safer in school, including by ensuring that schools have an allergy policy, adrenalin pens, and staff who know how to use them?

Rishi Sunak: First, may I extend my sympathy to Benedict’s family? It is always tragic to hear about the loss of a child. We fully understand the seriousness  of severe allergies, and believe that children with medical conditions should be properly supported to enjoy a full education and be safe at school. There is a legal duty on the governing body of schools to make arrangements for supporting pupils, including setting out what needs to be done, symptoms and treatment, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Health Secretary to discuss how we could further support pupils with serious allergies.

John Spellar: Yesterday, the Chancellor confirmed that it is Government policy to abolish national insurance, at a £46 billion annual cost, with no indication of where the money will come from. Can the Prime Minister rule out further freezes in tax allowances or an 8p increase in income tax to pay for it?

Rishi Sunak: That is total nonsense, and of course I rule that out. There is no unfunded policy. What we have said is that we have a long-term ambition to keep cutting national insurance to end the unfairness of the double taxation on work. We will make progress towards that goal in the next Parliament, just as we already have in this one by cutting national insurance by a third in six months, delivering a £900 tax cut, at the same time as increasing investment in the NHS and increasing the state pension. It is increasingly clear what this reveals: the Labour party opposes tax cuts for working people.

Angela Richardson: Empowering local pharmacies is a key part of this Government’s plan to cut waiting lists. In Guildford, we have recently lost two neighbouring pharmacies, but there is good news. I am pleased to report that, by working diligently with local pharmacists, concerned residents, the Minister and the integrated care board, I have helped to secure a new pharmacy in Burpham. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this new pharmacy and does he agree that it is vital that residents should have access to a good, efficient and, above all, local pharmacy?

Rishi Sunak: I care deeply about the future of our community pharmacies, and I am pleased to hear about my hon. Friend’s success in securing a new one for her constituents, joining the 10,500 others across the country. She is right about the important role that our local pharmacies can play, and that is why we are backing them with £645 million of additional funding through Pharmacy First, so that people can now go straight to their pharmacist and receive treatment for seven of the most common ailments, saving patients’ time and ensuring that they get the care they need quicker and closer to home.

Navendu Mishra: Last Friday,  reported major structural deficiencies at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport. Stepping Hill’s major out-patients building, the radiology department and the critical care unit have all been condemned. In March, I met with senior officials at Stockport NHS Trust and they were clear that a sustained lack of capital investment was the root cause of problems at my local hospital. Does the Prime Minister believe that our hospitals quite literally crumbling is the price worth paying for 14 years of successive Conservative failure?

Rishi Sunak: We fully recognise the need to invest in health infrastructure across the country, including at Stepping Hill Hospital. That is why we are currently spending around £4 billion a year for trusts to spend on necessary maintenance and repairs, on top of the £20 billion new hospital programme and the additional funding that was put aside to deal with RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete——maintenance. The hon. Gentleman talks about a legacy of the NHS; all he needs to do is look at his party’s record in Wales, where people are currently experiencing the worst A&E performance and the longest wait times anywhere in Great Britain.

Ruth Edwards: Nottingham City Council is expecting to fall short of its housing target by 6,000 new homes. Last time this happened, Rushcliffe, as a neighbouring authority, was forced to take thousands of homes on top of its own housing target, which led to huge pressures on our green spaces and public services. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that the changes we have made to the planning system will mean that this time we will be protected from Labour’s failure in Nottingham?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an important point. While on this side of the House the Conservatives believe in building the right homes in the right places with local people having a say, all that Labour would do is impose top-down housing targets on areas, decimating our precious countryside. In Nottinghamshire, as she says, we can see the difference between the well-run Conservative county council and the bankrupt Nottingham Council, which has left residents to pick up the bill for its profligacy.

Caroline Lucas: Untreated sewage was pumped into English waterways for more than 3.6 million hours last year, and into the sea off Sussex beaches three times in the last 24 hours alone, yet since privatisation the water companies have been allowed to rack up debts of over £64 billion and their shareholders have been allowed to pocket £78 billion in dividends. The majority of the public, including 58% of Conservative supporters and 80% of Labour supporters, want to turf out of the profiteering polluters. They want water brought back into public hands. When is the Prime Minister going to listen to them and end the legalised scam of privatisation?

Rishi Sunak: Our plans to tackle this go further than those of any previous Government. In fact, we now monitor 100% of overflows, up from just 7% under the Labour party; we are investing a record £56 billion into our water infrastructure; and we have enshrined strict targets in law and introduced unlimited fines for water companies, holding them and their bosses to account. It is crystal clear. The record shows that only one party has a clear plan to tackle this issue for the environment: the Conservative party.

Matt Vickers: Everybody knows that Stockton is a great place with great people and a great football team. My right hon. Friend recently visited the mighty Stockton Town to see the incredible work they do in the local community, and he heard about their promotion battle. I am sure that he will want to join me in congratulating Micky Dunwell and the mighty Anchors on their promotion.

Rishi Sunak: It was fantastic to visit Stockton Town football club with my hon. Friend, who is a brilliant champion for his local community, which I see at first hand on a weekly basis. I join him in congratulating  everyone at the club on their well-deserved promotion, and I hope that some of their good luck rubs off on Southampton in the coming weeks.

End of Custody Supervised Licence: Extension

Shabana Mahmood: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the expansion of the end of custody supervised licence scheme.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question.
Protecting the public is our No. 1 priority, so it is right that we take tough and decisive action to keep putting the most serious offenders behind bars, and for longer, as the public rightly expect. We are carrying out the biggest prison expansion programme since the Victorian era, and we are ramping up removals of foreign national offenders.
We have a duty to ensure that the prison system continues to operate safely and effectively, with offenders held in safe and decent conditions. This means ensuring that no prison exceeds a safe maximum operating limit. ECSL allows lower-level offenders to be released before their automatic release date. In March, the Lord Chancellor stated that we will
“work with the police, prisons and probation leaders to make further adjustments as required.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 157.]
This extension is in line with what he said.
ECSL operates only when absolutely necessary and is kept under constant review. I know that many Members of this House will be concerned about the early release of offenders into the community, but I make it clear that only offenders who would soon be released anyway will be considered for ECSL.
We have put in place safeguards, including that the Prison Service retains the discretion to prevent the ECSL release of any offender where early release presents a higher risk than if they were released at their automatic release date. There are strict eligibility criteria, and anyone convicted of a sexual offence, a terrorist offence or a serious violence offence is ruled out. Public safety will always be our No. 1 priority, and all those released will still be subject to probation supervision and stringent licence conditions.

Shabana Mahmood: Here we go again. Never in this country have a Government been forced to release prisoners more than two months early. This is the price that the public are paying for a justice system in crisis and a Government in freefall.
The early release scheme has now undergone three major extensions in just six months: it was quietly started in October, when the Government began releasing prisoners up to 18 days early; in March it was slipped out that it had been expanded from 18 to 60 days; and now it has emerged through a media leak that it has been extended once again, this time to 70 days. Worst of all, the Government are doing all of this in secret. They have not responded to any freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions or even the Justice Committee with any useful details about this scheme. The Government are releasing prisoners but not the facts. The strategy is clear for all to see: say nothing, try to get away with it and get to the other side of the general election. It is shameless and, frankly, a disgrace.
The public and this House rightly expect the Minister to be transparent and honest, so let us see whether he will answer these basic and simple questions. Why the increase of early release to 70 days? How many offenders have been released in the six months since the scheme became operational? How will they ensure that the probation service has the time and resources to adequately assess risk and protect the public? And will he give a guarantee to the House today that this secretive scheme will not be extended again?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for her question and would gently say a number of things to her. First, she suggests we were sneaking this out in October and March; that included statements to this House and was entirely transparent. On the hon. Lady’s party’s record, it operated an early release scheme for three years between 2007 and 2010, which leaves her on rather shaky ground. She talked about a media leak. This was an operational decision with operational guidance sent out to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and prison governors as well as other stakeholders, including, if I recall correctly, the probation union, for a minor change that was already reflected in the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice in March to this House.
The hon. Lady talked about data. The Secretary of State has been consistently clear that we will publish the data on an annualised basis, in exactly the same way as we do, for example, for deaths in custody and supplementary breakdowns of the prison population. We have been clear that we will always ensure that the prisons system has the spaces for the courts to be able to send people to prison. We are making an appropriate operational decision to ensure that continues to be the case.
The hon. Lady also rightly asked about probation, and I suspect that in our exchanges the one thing on which we might find ourselves in agreement is paying tribute to those who work in our probation service. As she will know, since 2021 we have increased the budget for the service by £155 million, with 4,000 additional probation officers in training. We have worked with the leadership of our probation service on this scheme and the probation union was one of the bodies we notified on the changes to the operational guidance.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Bob Neill: This is a perfectly rational, sensible and pragmatic response to the pressures in our prisons, and the Minister should take credit for it. However, I do ask him to reconsider the point about the transparency of data—precisely because it is a sensible thing to do, there is no reason why we should not release the figures in better time. But the underlying problem, which all parties in this House must face up to, is that the pressures in our prisons, to which the Justice Committee has repeatedly referred, stem from decades of underfunding by Governments of all parties? Prison costs £46,000-plus per year for each place, so it is a very expensive way of dealing with people, and not always the best means for handling lower-level offenders. May we have a more intelligent debate on sentencing and the purpose of prison, and perhaps we could start with the Minister committing to bringing back the sentencing Bill, which would enable us to have a more nuanced approach?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his questions. He rightly highlights the ongoing capacity challenges and a number of the drivers of those, one being that the average custodial sentence in this country has gone up from 14 months to about 21. In addition, the remand population has gone up from about 9,000 to some 16,500, partly as a result of the covid backlogs in the courts system and partly as a result of the Bar strike. On the publication of data, I gently and respectfully refer him to the answer I gave to his Committee and at the Dispatch Box just now. It is important that alongside recognising the pressures the system is under, we are taking steps to increase capacity, both by increasing the removals of foreign national offenders and doing it at a faster rate, and through having built almost 6,000 new prison places. That is in stark contrast to the record of the Labour party, which built not one of the 7,500 Titan prison places.

Munira Wilson: Court backlogs are sky high; prisons are dangerously close to capacity, which is why this policy had to be implemented; and the Government are claiming, as the Minister has just done, to be carrying out a big prison expansion programme, yet their record is appalling. In 2016, in response to the Taylor review, the Government committed to building two secure schools for young offenders. Since then, the budget has spiralled out of control and not one of those schools has opened. Does this not all just prove that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with our justice system?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady knows that I have a huge amount of respect for her, but even by Lib Dem standards that was stretching the bounds of credibility a little, not least because, as she will be aware, we have built two new prisons. We also have one in construction and two that have completed planning, and one that is subject to a planning appeal. As for the secure school, she should look forward to its opening in a matter of days.

Rob Butler: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little on the great improvements being made to increase capacity? Will he tell us a little more about the progress on ensuring that more foreign national offenders are removed to their own countries? Will he expand a little, as this seems to be badly understood by Opposition Members from all parties, on quite how much of a prison building programme the Government have? Will he say something on the number of prisons and the number of spaces that that will create, and on the consequent prospects for the rehabilitation of offenders and, in time, having fewer victims of crime?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that and I pay tribute to his work in the justice system not only in this House, but prior to his being a Member of it. I believe—I will, of course, correct this if I am slightly out—that about 16,000 FNOs have now been removed. It is timely that as I say that, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appears in the Chamber, so that I can pay tribute to him and his Department for their work on delivering that. On prison places, I set out to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) the progress on the six new prisons. Alongside that, we have built a vast number of rapid deployment cells and new house blocks, so we are expanding our prison  capacity rapidly. As I say, that stands in stark contrast to the failure to deliver on the Titan prison places by the Labour party.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Napo has said that
“the ECSL scheme is an unmitigated failure and has not only been extended without parliamentary scrutiny but represents an increasing risk to public safety”.
The Secretary of State knows that our probation service is in crisis and cannot cope without a significant increase in support and resources. Will the Government be providing that?

Edward Argar: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. As I said to the shadow Secretary of State, I have great respect for the work done by those in our probation service. Indeed, I have met the probation unions in the past. Although we do not always agree, I have huge respect for the work those unions do in representing their members.
I would make two points. First, to say that it was done without scrutiny in this House stretches the bounds of credibility. There have been two statements by the Secretary of State and multiple oral parliamentary question sessions, and I have undergone a polite but thorough grilling at the Justice Committee by its Chair. I do not think it stacks up to say that this has not been subject to scrutiny.
On the hon. Lady’s underlying point, I set out earlier that we are investing in probation. There is £155 million of additional investment a year since 2021 and there are 4,000 more probation officers and staff in training.

Andy Carter: A moment ago, the Minister set out the significant increase in the number of people being held on remand—I think he said it had increased from 9,000 to 16,000. What work are the Government doing to address court backlogs? What steps are being taken to look at other routes for monitoring people who are on remand, who could perhaps serve their remand period in the community under a tagging system?

Edward Argar: To correct myself, there are now 16,500 people on remand in the prison population. On court backlogs, we have increased the investment in our courts and the number of sitting days, and we are seeing progress. Obviously, courts take the decision on whether to remand or bail someone, and we can help that process by giving the courts the information they need. We continue to invest in the Bail Information Service, which gives sentencers reassurance about the information they need to make a judgment call about whether someone is safe to be bailed. We are increasing our investment in the community accommodation service, so that when someone is not bailed because they do not have a stable address, there is an increased opportunity for them to have an address, giving sentencers the opportunity to bail them.

Barry Sheerman: As the Minister and the Chair of the Justice Committee know, I have been in the House long enough to know when something is a sticking plaster. Perhaps the extension is necessary, but it is a sticking plaster. How many Queen’s Speeches since 2010 have included a thorough look at the justice system with a royal commission?  That has never happened. We all know that building prisons does not solve the crisis. We need radical reform of the whole justice system, which will need extra resources and real motivation from an incoming Labour Government. Does the Minister agree with me?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have occasionally tussled across the Chamber. I agree with some of what he says. He will not be surprised that I do not agree with his last statement because, judging by the track record up to 2010, I fear it would be another case of being let down by Labour. I am grateful for his typically thoughtful comments and his looking at the bigger picture behind the challenges we face.
It is right that we are putting those who commit the most serious crimes in prison for longer to protect society and ensure they pay their debt to society, but it is also important that we look at how we rehabilitate people when they are in prison. We all want those who have served their time to come out and live their lives, within bounds, in the community, and to be constructive and positive contributors to society. That is why we are focusing on providing education in prison and getting people into employment. I am grateful to the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for his work and focus on that area, both when he was Secretary of State for Education and as my predecessor. There are currently measures before Parliament, for example in the Sentencing Bill, that offer the House an opportunity to think about other ways to do things.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Llefarydd. This announcement comes after nine prisoners have recently lost their lives in HMP Parc in Bridgend. The Ministry of Justice says it will not step in. A private prison in Wales is an unaccountable anomaly that fails everyone—victims and prisoners alike. While we await the long anticipated devolution of justice, will the Minister tell me why, after 25 years, there is still no clarity over which ombudsman is responsible for health in Parc?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. We may disagree in our views on the devolution of justice to Wales, but she raises an important issue about   the deaths in the past few months in HMP and YOI Parc. I visited Parc recently and spoke to the governor and director, those in custody and those working at Parc. I have to be cautious about what I say, given that the matter will be before the coroner and the ombudsman. I will be appearing before the Welsh Affairs Committee next week, when I suspect some of the issues will be debated. I am happy to have a discussion with the right hon. Lady, but it is right that I do not stray at the Dispatch Box when these matters are before the coroner and the ombudsman.

Lindsay Hoyle: I hope the Minister will be happy to have a discussion with the MP whose constituency the prison is in, as well.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to all the questions. The scheme was initially designed to allow short-term early release by a matter of days, yet some releases are now early by some 70 days. Does the Minister understand why victims of crime are anxious that so-called “soft crime” criminals are getting an easier time? Victims of crime are told that perpetrators have been released early, so the victims can prepare themselves to see those perpetrators down the town or at the local supermarket, for example, which can be extremely disconcerting, even if it is not unexpected.

Edward Argar: Mr Speaker, I reassure you that I was due to be meeting the Member whose constituency HMP Parc is in at this moment in time, but I am here at the Dispatch Box. The meeting has been rescheduled and there is a date in the diary. As I promised at the last oral questions, that meeting has been arranged.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right to highlight that point. Our ECSL protections are significantly more stringent than those used by the Labour party when it ran its scheme for three years. Unlike its scheme, ours allows governors to veto the release of any prisoner when they think early release will create a risk to victims. There are a number of exemptions from the scheme and it allows for rigorous conditions to be placed on the release licence, be it tagging, exclusion zones or curfews. Prisoners will be well aware that if they breach those conditions, which are put in place to protect victims, they will hear the clang of the prison gate and be recalled.

Russia

James Cleverly: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House regarding measures that His Majesty’s Government will take in response to the reckless and dangerous activities of the Russian Government across Europe and now suspected here in the UK.
As was reported on Friday 26 April, five individuals have been charged in connection with an investigation into alleged offences under the National Security Act 2023, as part of a counter-terrorism policing investigation. The offences relate to what was widely reported by the media as a suspected arson attack on a Ukraine-linked business in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that the charges relate to alleged
“hostile activity in the UK in order to benefit a foreign state—namely Russia.”
I pay tribute to our law enforcement agencies for their quick and professional work to ensure these charges were brought. They are the first charges to be brought under the new National Security Act. Measures that this Government brought forward and this House passed are already being used to keep our country safe.
I thank the emergency services who responded to the fire at a commercial property in London where the suspected activity took place. The charges are serious and it is only through good fortune that nobody was hurt. I reassure the House that public safety is of the utmost importance, which is why the law enforcement response has been quick and decisive.
As Members will appreciate, I must not say anything further on this specific case, or any related case, to avoid prejudicing the outcome of ongoing criminal proceedings. I ask the House to respect that and to avoid using the debate to add to speculation about the incident. It is vital that justice runs its course.
However, I wish to highlight to the House a pattern of suspected Russian activity that we are seeing across Europe. This is not the first time that we have uncovered malign activity in the UK that is seemingly linked to Russia in the past year. In September, five Bulgarian nationals were charged with conspiring to commit espionage activities in the UK on behalf of Russia. A sixth individual was later charged and legal proceedings against all six are ongoing.
There is a much broader pattern of Russian malign activities across Europe. These include: plans for sabotage activities against military aid for Ukraine in Germany and in Poland; espionage in Bulgaria and in Italy; cyber-attacks and disinformation activities; air space violations; and GPS jamming with impact on civil aviation.
Over a number of years, we have witnessed Russia and its intelligence services engage in yet more open and brazen attempts to undermine our security, harm our people and interfere in our democracies. Such attempts involve Litvinenko, Georgia, Crimea, Salisbury, Ukraine and activities across Europe. Since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the rhetoric, threats and accusations from Russia have only increased, as Putin seeks to justify the death and destruction that he has brought to the Ukrainian  people. These activities bear all the hallmarks of a deliberate campaign by Russia designed to “to bring the war home” across Europe, and to undermine our collective resolve to support Ukraine in its fight. It will not work.
As the Prime Minister said in Poland last month, we are at a turning point for European security. With our allies, we will stand firm in the face of Russian threats to the UK and to our way of life. It is why, after Salisbury, we took measures with our partners to make Europe a harder operating environment for Russian intelligence services, including the expulsion of 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers from the UK. It is also why the UK has announced the biggest strengthening of the UK’s national defence in a generation, with a fully funded plan to grow the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.
The UK and our allies will not falter in our support for Ukraine, because it is existential to the security of Europe. This is why the Prime Minister has also announced an uplift in UK military aid to Ukraine, bringing it to £3 billion this year, and has committed to that level of support every year until the end of the decade, or longer if it is sadly still required. We have sanctioned more than 1,700 individuals, over 90% of the Russian banking sector, and more than 130 oligarchs and family members, with a combined net worth of £147 billion at the time of the invasion.
As of October, over £22 billion-worth of Russian assets were reported frozen as a result of UK sanctions. These assets can no longer be taken back to Russia to fund Putin’s war machine. We consider Russia’s campaign to undermine our support for Ukraine as unacceptable and it is destined to fail. We must wait for the ongoing criminal cases across Europe, including here in the UK, to conclude, but given these allegations, the Government will not wait to take further action to send a strong deterrence message to Russia and to further reduce the ability of the Russian intelligence services to threaten the UK. That is why today, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I am announcing a package of measures to make it clear to Russia that we will not tolerate such apparent escalations.
I can tell the House that we will: expel the Russian defence attaché, an undeclared military intelligence officer; remove diplomatic premises status from several Russian-owned properties in the UK, including Seacox House, a Russia-owned property in Sussex, and the trade and defence section in Highgate, which we believe have been used for intelligence purposes; and impose new restrictions on Russian diplomatic visas, including capping the length of time that Russian diplomats can spend in the UK.
The measures that we and our international partners have taken in recent years have already made the UK an extremely challenging operating environment for the Russian intelligence services. These further measures will serve only to strengthen our resilience to the Russian threat.
Our NATO allies share our view of Russia’s alleged behaviour, as seen in the North Atlantic Council statement of last week. Russia has failed to provide any explanation of these events. In the coming days, we should expect accusations of Russophobia, conspiracy theories, and hysteria from the Russian Government. That is not new and the British people and the British Government will not fall for it and will not be taken for fools by Putin’s bots, trolls and lackeys.
Russia’s explanation was totally inadequate; our response will be resolute and firm.
Our message to Russia is clear: stop this illegal war; withdraw your troops from Ukraine; and cease your malign activities. I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: As the Secretary of State himself noted at the beginning of his statement, he has referred to a live case. This case is sub judice and I ask other Members not to refer to it in their questions. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement.
It is the first job of any Government to keep our country safe from those who wish to do us harm, not least those who wish to undermine our democracy and everything that we stand for. We pay tribute to the remarkable work of our intelligence and security services and our law enforcement agencies—at home and abroad—which strain every sinew to keep us safe. We will always work with the Government on those national security issues.
The arson attack that the Home Secretary describes was a very serious one. The charges now laid are important. We support the work of law enforcement in this case, and it is immensely important that nothing is done to cut across that criminal justice case. I simply ask for the Home Secretary’s reassurance that a investigation is under way not just into the specific offences, but into the wider context and any wider threats to our national security that might be linked with this incident.
The Home Secretary has been clear in linking these charges to Russia and we echo his strong condemnation of Russian interference and hostile activity here in the UK and throughout Europe. Repeatedly, we have seen a brazen disregard by Russia for the rule of law, for the UK, for our allies and for our domestic security. As my right hon. Friends, the shadow Secretaries of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and for Defence have made clear, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for Ukraine. Any change in Government will not change that strong cross-party support, as we stand with our allies. Putin must be defeated in Ukraine, and Britain must stand four-square behind our Ukrainian friends.
Russia under Putin is a long-term, generational threat to the security of Europe, which requires a long-term response. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary said just yesterday, the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine, but as the Home Secretary has made clear, these challenges are also to our homeland security, which is why we support wholeheartedly the measures that the Home Secretary set out today. Just as we worked on a cross-party basis with the Government to pass the National Security Act 2023, so we will work closely with them in going further. May I ask the Home Secretary a few further questions about these and any further measures that the Government may be able to take and ask him whether he expects there to be a diplomatic response from Russia?
As we saw in Salisbury to an appalling extent, there is a willingness of Russian-sponsored actors to put the safety of British citizens and British residents at risk through cyber-threats—threats to undermine our democracy and our economy. I am concerned that we have known about the scale of these threats for some time, and that, in some areas, we have been too slow to respond. The Home Secretary has been too slow to rid the UK of illicit finance. He will know that concerns have been raised about prohibited imports of Russian-origin oil through third countries making their way to UK shores. Can he tell me what action is being taken to ensure that sanctions are being enforced?
The Home Secretary will know that there is real concern that the UK is still too easy for lawyers and accountants and for the laundering of Russian money through the UK that potentially aids and abets Putin’s war. The US has seized huge amounts of Russian-related assets as part of the sanctions evasion and charged more than 70 individuals in that regard. Can he confirm that no one has yet been charged with sanctions evasion in the US and set out what is being done to address the issue?
The Government said that in principle they support the seizing of Russian assets to fund the reconstruction of Ukraine, but there have been no proposals to take that forward. Will the Home Secretary tell us what is happening there? We have also still not had a full account of the scale of risk from golden visas. He will know, too, that there are threats to our democracy. The work of the defending democracy taskforce is far too limited. While the Security Minister is working on that, what engagement has the Home Secretary had, and has it been discussed at the National Security Council?
Finally, the update to the Government’s integrated review warned in March last year that
“the transition into a multipolar, fragmented and contested world has happened more quickly and definitively than anticipated.”
From the Iranian-sponsored kidnap and kill threats on UK soil to the repression of Hong Kong protesters outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester, the UK has undergone, because of behaviour not just from Russia but more widely, a fundamental shift in the threat landscape, as increasingly aggressive state actors feel emboldened to target the UK, often in co-operation with serious and organised crime. I urge the Home Secretary to look at the work that was done after the huge shift in the terror threat that we faced following 9/11 and 7/7 to draw up the Contest strategy. We do not have a similar strategy for state actors and state-sponsored threats. The work is far too fragmented. The Labour party would like to see a comprehensive equivalent to Contest. I urge him to look again at that. We will work with him on that too.

James Cleverly: I thank the right hon. Lady for her party’s commitment to the ongoing support for Ukraine’s self-defence. She was right to read that into the record. There is no doubt about her commitment among Government Members. I reassure her that we do look at the wider threats emanating from Russia. We liaise closely with our international partners. We suspect that other countries in the coalition of support for Ukraine are being targeted by Russia. Those countries will take discrete, domestic actions, but I draw the House’s attention to the shared commitment set out in the North Atlantic  Council statement. I do not have the precise quote in front of me, but from memory it said that nations will take both individual and collective action.
Our response is calibrated. It is designed to send a very clear message, as well as hampering Russia’s ability to conduct espionage here in the UK. We will look closely at Russia’s response and whether it seeks to escalate matters. We will always ensure that we protect our ability to have lines of communication with Russia, even during these most challenging of times. Routes for de-escalation, error avoidance and the avoidance of miscalculation are very important. We recognise that, and I believe that Putin’s regime in Moscow recognises that. We will seek to maintain lines of communication, even while we take these decisive actions.
With regard to the extensive sanctions, we moved quickly, in concert with our international friends and allies. Those sanctions are having an effect. Of course Russia seeks to evade sanctions where it can. While sanctions enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Treasury, it is a cross-Government piece of work. All parts of Government—this was very much the case when I was Foreign Secretary, speaking with our international counterparts and interlocutors—try to close off opportunities for sanctions evasion.
The defending democracy taskforce is incredibly important, particularly as we head towards a general election. We will of course adapt, and seek to work cross-party, because it is in all our interests that we defend democracy. I will continue to ensure that both the Security Minister and I work closely with the shadow Front Bench and other Opposition parties’ Front-Bench teams to protect something that is incredibly valuable.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the update from the Secretary of State. The United Kingdom has led the world in supporting Ukraine—militarily, economically and diplomatically. Our key ally, the United States, has introduced legislation, put forward by Congressman French Hill, my counterpart in the British-American parliamentary group, on seizing Russian assets and using them to rebuild Ukraine. I introduced a similar Bill in Parliament, which is due for a Second Reading on 17 May, and I have written to the Foreign Secretary about that. Will the Home Secretary clarify whether the United Kingdom will support the measures that the United States has introduced? It is crucial that we do everything that we can to cut off Putin’s finances and ensure that he pays for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

James Cleverly: We work very closely with our international allies to put pressure on the Russian regime. We will look closely at the detail of the proposals going through the United States system. There is a very big difference between freezing and seizing of assets. Going from one to the other would need close international co-operation and co-ordination to ensure that we always act within the rule of law. We do not want to inadvertently find ourselves on the receiving end of criticism from a regime such as Putin’s that we are stepping outside the bounds of international law, but we have made it clear that we will be incredibly imaginative and will work hard to ensure that the regime and people who have funded the brutal attack on Ukraine are also those who fund the rebuilding of Ukraine. We will work with our international partners to ensure that is the reality.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stewart McDonald: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I pay tribute to those in law enforcement who work so diligently to counter these types of threats, which are extremely well known, and understood right across Europe. Disinformation and other types of hybrid threat are now a feature of democratic life in this country and elsewhere. We need a comprehensive sea change in how we approach that threat—a new whole-of-society approach to dealing with hybrid threats. I am fine to support the Government’s increase in defence spending, but what we really need is new thinking, new doctrines and new institutions in order to compete against threats that are ever evolving, becoming more sophisticated, more aggressive, and extremely well funded.
I will focus in particular on the threat of disinformation, especially because we are in an election year. The Government used to provide Parliament—I cannot quite recall when this stopped—with a six-monthly update on the threat posed by Daesh. Can we have a similar type of statement on hostile disinformation—a written statement to Parliament on a regular basis, informing Members of where the threat is and what is being done to meet it? I echo the comments about pressing the Government to ensure that sanctioned money is converted into Ukrainian hryvnia to allow that country to rebuild. I will not press the Home Secretary on that any further—he knows our views—but while I welcome the seizure of the assets that he mentioned and the expulsion of the defence attaché, I can tell him that there are tons of assets in Scotland, including land, estates and much else, that could also be seized. If he chooses to look into that any further, he will certainly have our support.

James Cleverly: It is important that we are precise in our use of language. The Russian assets have been sanctioned and frozen, and there is an important difference between freezing and seizing. As far as I am aware, no one has seized or liquidated Russian assets. However, of course we abide by our commitment to ensure that the people who funded the brutality fund the reconstruction. We are absolutely committed to that.
I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman’s point about regular updates, particularly as disinformation and distortions of our democracy and society have a more direct and immediate effect in the UK than perhaps the activities of Daesh do. I will take on board the practicalities of how much detail we might be able to put in the public domain, but the Government have set aside significant amounts of money to the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the workstreams that flow out from that, to help parliamentarians and candidates at the forthcoming election to defend themselves both physically and digitally against assaults that might come for them. We are looking at ways to ensure that that is as effective as possible. With regard to the point he made about international co-operation, of course we will continue to work closely with our allies; our self-defence has to be collective if it is to be fully effective.

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly support every word the Home Secretary has said today. He is right that Putin has been engaged now for at least 10 years—arguably longer—in a sustained, hostile and  malign set of actions against the UK and our allies. On occasions where we have not been as overt in our opposition, I think he has taken advantage, so I am glad that the Home Secretary has taken this action. He knows all the things I will ask about: why is there still Russian oil coming into the UK? Why is Russia still exporting the same amount of oil as it did before sanctions were introduced? Why have we still not gone as far as the Americans and Canadians in seeking not just to freeze, but to seize Russian state assets so that they can be used for the development of Ukraine? Why has the Abramovich money still not gone to Ukraine? That would be more than £3 billion, more than the amount the UK has so far devoted. Finally, can he say a word about Vladimir Kara-Murza, a man many of us have met? He is very brave and we want to make sure that the UK Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that he is protected in Russia.

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions, some of which fall within the remit of the Foreign Secretary; the Deputy Foreign Secretary will answer in this House on the Foreign Secretary’s behalf, but I can let the hon. Gentleman know that the answers that I and the Foreign Office have previously given him remain unchanged. We work with our international partners, because both sanctions evasion and the fight against it are by nature international acts. As I say, enforcement is predominantly a Treasury competency and the international co-operation falls within the remit of the FCDO, but we all work to ensure that sanctions evasion does not happen.
I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. Although a number of countries are investigating what a regime for the seizure and liquidation of Russian assets might look like, and we will continue to work with our international partners to explore ways of ensuring that the people who paid for the brutality pay for the rebuilding, it is not accurate to say that other countries have seized and liquidated Russian assets.

Barry Sheerman: May I say what a pleasure it is to see that we are taking this seriously? The words of the Home Secretary filled me with renewed optimism, because we need both optimism and action. Does he agree that we can never underrate the Russians and Vladimir Putin? The fact is that they are very clever; they are using both financial strategies and dupes in Europe and other places to channel their influence. We must be wary at every level.
Does the Home Secretary think our intelligence services are equipped to cope with the real challenge that we now face from Russia, and indeed from China? Has he been picking up what I am picking up from a lot of my old friends in Washington? Not only are they very disturbed about Russian influence on American elections, but I have heard very strong information that they believe that some of the influence is coming from Russia via London and from the United Kingdom. That is a real problem.
The Home Secretary knows I have a bee in my bonnet about this, but there are people in this Parliament who have been named as very close to Russia. We had a member of the House of Lords featured in a main article in The Times only two weeks ago. Surely we must  make our House and our Parliament as clean and above board as possible, and if there are such groups or individuals in this place, we should know about it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I presume there was a question?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge and passion about these important issues. He will of course understand that I will not go into detail about intelligence and security matters, but I can reassure him and the House that our intelligence services, the external-facing services and our security services, are incredibly effective. They are without doubt amongst the best in the world, and I would—perhaps rather arrogantly—suggest that they are the best in the world. In my experience both as Home Secretary and in my former role as Foreign Secretary, I have seen the positive diplomatic influence that our agencies exert on our behalf; they are regarded very highly by our allies and international partners. Without going into detail, I hope that he and the House can feel reassured that we are in good hands.
However, we must recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, Russia takes pride in its long history of disinformation, propaganda and kompromat. It wears that history as a badge of honour and it is constantly evolving its threats towards us, so we have to constantly evolve our defences. I can reassure him that we are doing that; the National Security Act 2023 is part of that, but that we reserve the right to take further action, were Russia to be foolish enough to escalate or to attempt once again the actions that we believe it has taken in our country.

Kenny MacAskill: Neither prosecutions nor penalties have been applied to those importing Russian oil that is refined in, and branded as coming from, India and other countries. At the same time, the threat of closure hangs over Grangemouth refinery. The world knows that this activity is ongoing, and Grangemouth is aware of the threat facing it and industrialisation in Scotland. Is it not time the Minister spoke to colleagues to ensure that not just state security, but energy security is considered, that our refinery capacity remains in Scotland and that, at the same time, those profiting from bringing in Russian oil are prosecuted?

James Cleverly: This Government are committed to ensuring security. While they have not been universally applauded, the licences that we have awarded to ensure that there is a vibrant hydrocarbons industry in Scotland are important for jobs, for the Scottish economy, for the UK economy and for our energy security. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that energy security will remain at the forefront of our minds. On sanctions evasion—particularly oil and gas sanctions—I assure him that my noble friend Lord Cameron, as I did when I was Foreign Secretary, raises these issues internationally with those countries still trading with Russia, at every opportunity.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and very much welcome his clear commitment, which encourages all of us in this House and across this great nation. Bearing in mind the overnight raid on Ukraine’s energy facilities and the continued aggression carried out while our eyes are  turned towards the middle east, does he not believe that we must send the swift and strong message to Putin that we are approaching the point when decisive action must be taken by the allies, and that we have both the capacity and the will to intervene against the despicable war being waged against the Ukrainian people?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that I want to reinforce. It was quite clear that Vladimir Putin thought that the UK and our wider allies would be either distracted or dissuaded from supporting Ukraine when he initiated his full-scale invasion. Nothing could have been further from the truth. If he thought that the evolving situation in Gaza—the terrorist attack against Israel and Israel’s military action to defend itself—would distract us from our support for Ukraine or our self-defence against Russian malign activity, he was again mistaken. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, although of course we are very focused on the situation in Gaza, south-west Israel and the wider middle east region, we will not lose sight of our commitment to the Ukrainians in their self-defence and to re-establishing the fact that national borders cannot be redrawn by force.

Passport e-Gates Network Outage

Tom Pursglove: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about disruption at the border.
At around a quarter to eight last night, the Home Office became aware of a significant IT outage. Investigations determined that the incident was caused by technical issues within the Home Office network. The relevant teams quickly swung into action and a technical response was under way within six minutes. Once the fault was identified, officials worked closely with partners to rectify the problem and restore service. I joined a gold call with the lead officials at midnight last night, and the issue was resolved shortly before half-past midnight.
My information this morning is that all impacted systems have been restored and the incident has been formally closed, with all due diligence checks completed. At this stage, I can assure the House and the wider public that all security checks were maintained throughout. Border security was not compromised at any point, and there is no indication of malicious cyber-activity. Police access to operational systems was unaffected.
As a result of the outage, there were delays at some airports, as Members will be aware. The queues remained manageable and within health and safety parameters. Staff on the ground supported passengers, including through the provision of water, and ensured that welfare needs were met. Although undoubtedly inconvenient, the delays were necessary to maintain the integrity of our border. That is not to minimise the impact of the disruption; I realise that it will have been frustrating for all those affected. I offer my thanks to passengers for their patience as urgent activity was mounted to resolve the incident. I also place on record my gratitude to all the personnel who were involved in the response, including staff within the Home Office and Border Force, and at airports.
I realise that a number of questions will arise from this occurrence. I will, of course, do my utmost to provide as much information as possible, with the caveat that detailed work to understand the circumstances is ongoing. As the House and the public would expect, comprehensive activity to ascertain all relevant information about what happened will be undertaken in earnest in the coming days. Any incident involving our border systems causes concern—that is perfectly understandable. It is worth putting this into context, however. Border Force facilitated over 132 million passenger arrivals last year, consistently processing over 90% of passengers within service standards. As I have said, security was maintained at all times, an urgent response was mounted, and the issue was fully resolved in a matter of hours. None the less, I sincerely apologise for the disruption that occurred.
I can assure the House that the Home Secretary and I will be unswerving in our determination to ensure that every possible lesson is learned and that this does not happen again, and I know that will be the objective of everyone across the Home Office. The security, integrity and effectiveness of the UK border is paramount. It is my foremost priority, and will be for the entirety of the time that I have in this role. I commend the statement to the House.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Dan Jarvis: I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I join him in paying tribute to the staff who responded swiftly to resolve last night’s e-gate network outage, whose actions should be commended. It is also right to pay tribute, as he did, to the passengers who waited patiently for hours—some after very long flights.
Our border security is not and should not be a dividing issue. The Minister has done the right thing by coming to the House today with the aim of providing clarity and reassurance on this extremely important matter. However, I am sure that the House will agree that the chaotic scenes across many of the UK’s major airports last night were unacceptable, not least because e-gates have failed on several occasions in recent years. The system collapsed at the start of the late May bank holiday weekend in 2023 because of a failed system upgrade, and technical issues in 2021 caused the gates to fail three times in two months.
That is unacceptable, and it brings into sharp focus how the current high-capacity e-gate system is no longer reliable enough and risks further damaging public trust in the Government’s management of our border security. Furthermore, although the Minister has made it clear that last night’s e-gate failure was down to technical issues rather than malign activity, the Home Office and Border Force must make every effort to ensure that any such technical issues do not expose vulnerabilities in the system that could be exploited by our adversaries, be they state or non-state malign actors. Britain’s border system should at all times allow lawful entry into our country and stop illegal entry. The safety and security of our country depends on it.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. First, at this stage, is he able to confirm whether the same technical issue responsible for previous e-gate failures is behind last night’s events? If so, what urgent action will be taken to ensure that it is finally resolved? Secondly, does he believe that the contingency plan for a national e-gate failure worked last night, and what does he deem to be an acceptable wait time for processing entries into the UK when e-gates fail? Thirdly, is he able to share figures on how many Border Force officers were redirected from other vital duties to manually process entries in the UK last night, and were there backlogs in other parts of the border system as a result?
While he is answering questions about mobility and security at the border, can the Minister give a guarantee that full preparations are in place at Dover to avoid queues when the European entry and exit checks are introduced in the autumn? Finally, will he take this opportunity to give an assurance that no other national e-gate failure will happen on his watch? I hope that the Minister will take those questions in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. If he is not able to answer them today, will he write to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and to me?
There cannot be another repeat of the chaos seen at Britain’s border last night. The Government must do everything they can to resolve these persistent problems for once and for all. The public must have faith that the UK’s border security system still works.

Tom Pursglove: I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for the tone with which he has approached today’s statement and the response on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I reiterate the thanks and appreciation that were reflected in his remarks on Border Force staff and the teams within the airports, who worked alongside the airlines to support passengers during this period of disruption. Again, I place on record my sincere apologies to all passengers who were affected by this issue last night. I can understand their frustration, and I sincerely apologise for it.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked whether the contingency plan that was in place worked. Of course, we will always learn lessons from contingencies, evolve those models and make sure we are responsive to feedback. However, I think it is fair to say that overall, the contingency plans did work last night, with that strong partnership underpinning them—working with the airlines and airports, with leadership from Border Force teams. He also asked whether border security was compromised. I can confirm that it was not: proper checks were undertaken in the way that we would expect, just not in the automated manner that people would wish to see, with greater manual processing of cases but relying on the underlying systems. Again, that demonstrates that the contingency plans that we put in place for incidents such as this one were robust and did work. The response was triggered within six minutes; the operational contingency then began within an hour. That has subsequently been assured as well, to ensure that the integrity of the border was maintained at all times.
Turning to the security breach aspect of this issue, let me again be clear that this was not a cyber-attack, but the hon. Gentleman is right about the need for us always to be vigilant when it comes to border security and making sure that the IT systems that underpin it are able to withstand those sorts of pressures. We continue to factor that into the work that we are taking forward through our future borders endeavour. When it comes to the root cause of what has happened—how we got to this point in the first place—as soon as the fix was put in place, the posture changed to getting us to a place where we better understand that root cause. That work is ongoing, and it would not be right for me to speculate on it, but I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that we will get to the bottom of this issue.
As for the specific technical issue last night, I am assured that the technical team are confident that there is now a permanent fix to that issue. When it comes to e-gate reliability in general, more than 90 million passengers use e-gates each year, and we are world leading in their use. This is an extremely rare occurrence; as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, one can never guarantee that any IT system will be 100% reliable 100% of the time, but that is why it is imperative that robust contingencies are in place to underlie all those systems, to maintain the integrity of our border.
As a Government, we are clear that we must never compromise border security, and we did not: the border was operational, albeit slower than any of us would like, for which I am sorry. This incident also demonstrates why automation at the border and e-gates are such an important part of the way in which people enter the country: without them, we would see the sort of operation that we saw last night all the time. In fact, last year, over 90% of people cleared the border within 30 minutes,  which demonstrates just how integral e-gates are and why we place a real emphasis on making sure they are available. As I have said, we will get to the bottom of this.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the EU entry-exit system. In recent weeks, we have had a number of opportunities to debate that system in the House. An enormous amount of cross-Government work is going on at the moment to ensure we have the best possible plans in place. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—who is in his place—and I are working very closely together on this matter, alongside colleagues from across Government, as well as engaging thoroughly with our EU and French counterparts. We have made real progress in recent weeks, and we will continue to sustain that effort.

Iain Stewart: May I press the Minister a little further on the reliability of the airports’ contingency plans when we have failures such as this one? As he has alluded to, this is not the first time that this has occurred. I would be interested to know what lessons learned from previous handlings were deployed on this occasion, particularly for supporting passengers who are elderly, have disabilities or young families, or require additional care and support, so that they do not suffer unduly during delays.

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Transport Committee is right to raise those concerns about passengers and their experiences. As I say, this was a highly regrettable situation, but the response swung into action very quickly. It is fair to say that we always iterate and always learn. We probably will not have got everything 100% right in the immediate response, but there was a genuine effort, co-ordinated by Border Force, with the airlines and airports, to support passengers, particularly vulnerable ones. Individuals who were at airports last night have said to me that they were impressed by the contingency arrangements that were in place, but there are always things that we can learn from these efforts, and we will do exactly that. Our contingency plans always have to be iterated; we always have to be responsive. The integrity of our border is of the utmost importance, and supporting people—particularly vulnerable people—when things go wrong is at the forefront of our considerations.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Chris Stephens: As was said by the Labour shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), this is the third e-gate failure in a year, and just weeks ago, travellers in Edinburgh, Manchester and Bristol faced hour-long queues. It sounds like the Minister is conducting a thorough investigation; could he confirm that, and also confirm that he will report his findings to the House in a future statement?
This time, the problem appeared to affect not just e-gates. Belfast international airport, which does not have e-gates, said that the Border Force systems had been impacted. Could the Minister please clarify that issue? Finally, the Home Office has been talking for a long time about introducing other technological innovations in order to carry out its business. What lessons does the Minister think this example provides?

Tom Pursglove: I thank the SNP spokesman for the constructive tone he has taken in asking his questions. He has raised a number of points. I can absolutely guarantee him that a thorough investigation is ongoing to establish exactly what went wrong. The technical team is confident that the fix that has been put in place addresses the issue, but of course, we want to understand the underlying causes of what went wrong last night to ensure that the system is as robust as it can possibly be, so that it can withstand any technical challenges going forward. I will gladly take away his point about updating the House, and will consider how that can best be achieved.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a point about Belfast airport. If he does not mind, I would like to take that point away, speak to Border Force officials about it, and provide him with a written update. As for the wider point about delivery of a considerable programme of change at our domestic border over the coming months, he will recall that we are rolling out changes through the electronic travel authorisation scheme. We have been delivering that in phases, and the early indications have been good. That scheme gives us much greater information upstream about passengers before they arrive at our border. That helps us to tackle threats before passengers travel, which is an improved situation, and allows us to understand more about passengers whom we currently know very little about before they set off for the United Kingdom, as opposed to trying to deal with issues at the border. We have also introduced e-visas, which are another important part of our programme to digitise the border.
It is important to say that there will always be a physical Border Force presence at our airports. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) remarks on that point; I wanted to make it clear to the House, because although there is always a place for technology, and automation has an important role to play, it is right that there always be a physical presence as well, to support people who arrive at our ports, and to ensure that we can respond to any issues. Automation will allow us to focus increasingly on risk, and to deploy more Border Force officers to deal with it, as well as to improve the passenger experience, so the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) is right to raise the issue. Any and all learning will be taken forward as we develop processes and programmes, but I am confident that our plans for them are robust. We will get on with delivering on the commitments we have made.

Henry Smith: Whenever there are malfunctions of the e-gates at the UK border, it is the airport operators, including Gatwick in my constituency, that have to bear the brunt of the congestion caused by the delays that result. As the Home Office updates the e-gates system with new technology, what assurances can the Minister give me that he and the Home Office will engage with the airport operators, so that they are very much part of ensuring that we have a secure and free-flowing border?

Tom Pursglove: I know that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of the digitisation that we are undertaking of our border from a security, efficiency and customer service perspective. All of those are very important to airlines as well as airport operators. My understanding  is that there has consistently been significant engagement with our work on the future borders programme, in addition to routine engagement with Border Force officials. That was reflected in the work done on the ground last night in responding to the issue; it showed how strong those links and connections are. However, we must never be complacent, and when it comes to the programmes that we are developing and have made commitments to deliver, I guarantee my hon. Friend that we will sustain that drumbeat of engagement. I am keen to lean into that as the Minister, and officials will continue to do so as well. I am very grateful for his efforts in raising Gatwick airport’s issues and concerns. He is a very diligent representative of his area, and I am really appreciative of his input.

Chris Bryant: I commend the Minister for making the statement; it is good to see such transparency. Can he clarify how long it took from the moment the service went down to its restoration? Was it one, two, or three hours? What is the longest period that passengers had to wait? If it was not a cyber-attack and there was no malicious activity, as he said, what was the problemt? Was it with the IT, was it some kind of glitch—a Horizon kind of glitch—or was it the physical operation of the barriers?
Last night was not the day with the largest number of travellers in the UK. We will have days later on this year when we could have significantly larger numbers—for instance, the Whitsun bank holiday. What is the Minister putting in place to ensure that there are sufficient contingency measures, just in case the system goes down again?

Tom Pursglove: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he puts his questions. Many passengers saw waits of two to three hours last night as they were processed at the border. As I set out in my statement, the fix began to take effect at around half-past midnight, so there were several hours between the issue first becoming known—the response kicked in around six minutes later—and the fix beginning to make a difference at around 12.30 am.
The hon. Gentleman asked what more we can do on the contingency side. I think that there will be learning that comes out of last night. We will take that on board, and there will be opportunities for us to discuss and evaluate it, working with the airports and the airlines. As I have consistently said, I think the response last night proved that there is robust contingency planning in place. It did make a difference, and it meant that the integrity of the border was maintained, but I am sorry that passengers had a longer wait than any of us would want.
On the technical issue, I will not pre-empt the work ongoing at pace in the Department to get to the bottom of the specifics, but we will of course respond to that issue, and any learning required that flows from that will take place.

Marco Longhi: The British are world-renowned for their patience in queueing, but I thank the Minister for his statement, and for his apology, especially for my Dudley constituents. I think the part  that my constituents would struggle with more is his saying that it is a No. 1 priority to make sure that our borders are 100% secure, when the same constituents can see hundreds of people, if not 1,000 a day, landing on the beaches with no documentation whatsoever, and being allowed to stay in this country; if they go on to commit a crime, several years later, they may still be allowed to stay in this country. It is a very real frustration, and something that even I cannot reconcile.

Tom Pursglove: I think my hon. Friend will recognise that there are proper checks in place when people arrive at our airports, as there were last night. Those people were arriving in our country and going about their business perfectly legally. The work we are taking forward—initiatives such as the electronic travel authorisation scheme—will only enhance the security of our border, which I think his constituents would welcome. That is akin to what we see in the United States and countries such as Australia.
However, my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of illegal migration. I can assure him and his constituents that proper security checks are carried out when people arrive clandestinely. People should not be making small boat crossings of the channel, and should not be coming to the United Kingdom in the backs of lorries. It is completely unacceptable, and that is why his constituents so strongly support the work that the Government are taking forward, particularly focused on making channel crossings unviable. Those crossings happen at the hands of evil criminal gangs, who take people’s money, put them in small boats, and have no regard to whether they get safely to the other side. It is heinous, and that is why we are determined to put them out of business.

Gavin Newlands: I think travellers last night were given an authentic introduction to life in Brexit Britain under this UK Government, where absolutely nothing works whatsoever. That is the churlish point over, but clearly passengers in Glasgow were impacted by this issue. However, the fix at 12.30 am came just before whole slew of 12 flights arrived, so Glasgow in many ways was a lucky airport, as were the passengers arriving there.
The Minister speaks about the contingency plans working. What he is doing to reach out to individual airports, and to look at how their contingency plans worked last night? What resources are available to those airports for improving those contingency plans?

Tom Pursglove: On the first part of the hon. Member’s question, what a load of rubbish. E-gates were an important part of our border infrastructure when we were a member of the European Union, and they continue to be important now that we are a non-member of the European Union, so I think we can discount that perspective.
However, the second half of the hon. Member’s question was very valid. That is precisely why I want operational teams to spend time engaging with airports and airlines following the incident last night, to make sure that we capture any and all learning flowing from it. As I have said, I think it is fair to say that across those organisations, working in partnership, there was a robust response. The contingency plan did work, but there will be things that we can learn from the incident. That is as  relevant to Gatwick as it is to Heathrow, Stansted, Belfast and other airports. We should and will have those conversations.

Kevin Foster: It is probably worth reminding ourselves why the expansion of the use of e-gates, including to families with children aged 10 and over, has been useful, not just from a passenger comfort and convenience point of view, but because there is a range of security benefits to the checks that machines can perform, particularly biometric checks, but I am sure that the Minister will be grateful to me for not going into that on the Floor of the House of Commons.
On this type of outage, inevitably, when a technology is being relied on, there is the potential for something to happen. It is reassuring to hear that in this instance the problem was not caused by a malign influence. If it later emerged that it had been, I am sure that the Minister would come back to the House, but I can imagine the type of assurance that has been given in the Home Office before he came here to give his assurance from the Dispatch Box.
For me, it is about further exploring the opportunities for other agencies and authorities to support Border Force in delivering the border. It seems clear from the Minister’s statement that at all times people are still being checked, but just by an officer, rather than through an e-gate. What further work could be done on rapid deployment through support agreements, potentially with officers from other parts of the civil service who have the training to operate the border, but are not necessarily routinely positioned on it? We must consider the fact that our core goal for the border, particularly as the electronic travel authorisation scheme comes in, is to stop people who are a threat or who we do not want to allow into the country from getting on a plane in the first place to come to the United Kingdom. We should increasingly be declining them at the place where they check in, rather than at the UK border.

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend speaks with real authority on these issues, having been the architect of so much of the change we are introducing at the border. He is right that the possibilities of automation are enormous, for improving the passenger experience and having a greater understanding of many of those individuals who are travelling to our country and being able to prevent some of that travel in the first place, rather than responding to that at the border, where risk is involved.
My hon. Friend asked about contingencies. There is always a place for ensuring wider training and opportunity within the organisation to surge capacity when there are challenges. We have done that in responding to a number of different challenges over the years. It is fair to say that last night there were Border Force staff members who are perhaps not on the primary control point ordinarily who were surged in to support the team working on the PCP to help get people through the border as quickly as possible. In particular where there are protracted issues affecting our ports, we should always look at what we can do to provide additional support from other parts of the Home Office and perhaps even elsewhere.

Wera Hobhouse: I pay tribute to the staff who worked so hard to respond to the crisis and to every traveller who waited so patiently. The episode says a lot about the Government’s priorities when it comes  to controlling our borders properly. Instead of chasing headlines on immoral and expensive policies to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, can the Minister assure me that he will focus on ensuring that my Bath constituents can travel freely, safely and without huge delays?

Tom Pursglove: That is always the priority of the Government. I have set out the focus on security, efficiency and ensuring that passengers have the best possible experience of the UK border. I have been able to set out the fact that in so many instances—a very high percentage of occasions—the e-gates work successfully. Some 90 million passengers pass through the e-gates quickly every year. When it comes to border security, I am probably right in saying that the hon. Lady voted against the sorts of measures, such as the electronic travel authorisation scheme, that we legislated for through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That is a cornerstone of our efforts to help improve security at the border, improve that automation and be able to bring passengers through more quickly.

Eleanor Laing: Lastly, I call Patrick Grady.

Patrick Grady: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you perhaps saw the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) handing me the wooden spoon on his way out of the Chamber earlier.
None of this will surprise those of us who think that the Home Office’s default position is to make entering the UK as difficult as possible, because this is essentially a manifestation of the hostile environment writ large. May I press the Minister on the contingencies and redundancies? When people are processed manually at the border, is it essentially the e-gate system with a human being doing the verification, or is it sufficiently separate that people can be processed manually through the border while the e-gates are down? What is his relationship with the airlines and the airports? Is there awareness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, when large numbers of flights are expected, so that the e-gates are fully operational and fully staffed? Certainly in my experience and that of some constituents, that is not always the case.

Tom Pursglove: I rather wonder whether the SNP reshuffle is on the minds of SNP colleagues here this afternoon, and their prospects, because we have heard some rather bizarre angles in some of the questions. On the more serious points that the hon. Gentleman raises, when it comes to how we dealt with this incident yesterday, there was underlying system availability to support manual checks to get people through the border as quickly as possible. We also work closely with the airlines and the airports to ensure that we maximise the staffing on the primary control at peak times to ensure that people can be processed as quickly as possible. There are people who pass through having face-to-face interactions with Border Force officers, and there are people who pass through the e-gates. We make sure that we take proper account of the flows through our ports and that staffing reflects the demand at any given point of the day.

Bill Presented

Medicines (Vitamin B12 Injections) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jane Hunt, supported by Peter Aldous and Anthony Mangnall, presented a Bill to provide that vitamin B12 injections may be sold, supplied or administered by a registered pharmacist without a prescription; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 June, and to be printed (Bill 213).

Assistance Dogs and Pavement Parking

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove exemptions from requirements to provide access or services to a person who is accompanied by an assistance dog; to make the undertaking of disability equality training in relation to assistance dogs a condition of holding a licence to drive a taxi or private hire vehicle; to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements and footpaths; and for connected purposes.
Just imagine how hard life would be if you could not see. There are amazing people, however, who can use a dog to help them go about their daily life—dogs trained so skilfully that they can transform opportunities for blind people. Sadly, almost a third of people with sight loss are reluctant to go out on their own, and almost half of guide dog owners are forced to change or restrict where they are willing or able to go. As we see assistance dogs able to help more people with more and different disabilities, this Bill will solve some of the problems that these dog owners face.
We have all felt for a light switch in a dark room at home, and we can understand those feelings of frustration, helplessness or even panic. If that is what it is like to turn on the lights in our own homes, imagine trying to do so somewhere strange, where a mishap could mean cracking one’s head on a kerb or, worse, being hit by a truck. No shop, no restaurant and no supermarket should be turning away someone with an assistance dog. No taxi driver should be worrying about dog allergies when they see a blind person, because they must and will know how to look after them, because they have been trained to deal with those customers. No pavement should be an obstacle course, blocked by parked vehicles.
I am proud that in North Herefordshire people with sight loss have an especially esteemed place. Hereford is home to the Royal National College for the Blind, where young people with visual impairment receive training and education. It is wonderful to witness these individuals learning not to cope, but to thrive. However, figures suggest that 74% of people with assistance dogs were turned away from food and drink outlets between July 2021 and July 2022; that 53% experienced a refusal when visiting a shop; and that 37% were told “No” by hotels and bed and breakfasts. All of that is in spite of the Equality Act 2010, under which the vast majority of such refusals are already illegal. The Equality Act protects the assistance dog, not the person, so it allows for far wider opportunity for access.
It is the plight of these people, however, that is of the greatest importance to me, because of how the Royal National College for the Blind is located in Herefordshire, but also because I am a Royal National Institute of Blind People champion and the owner of a former guide dog, Warwick. There is no reason why anybody should be turning away assistance dog users. “Angry”, “embarrassed”, “disappointed” and “isolated” are the words used by respondents to a Guide Dogs UK survey to describe such bad experiences. But, of course, the dogs say nothing.
At a time when the RNIB reports that only 56% of blind and partially sighted people have received vision rehabilitation support and 26% of local authorities have left people waiting more than a year for assessment and support, it is critical that we do more, and we must do it now.
Working assistance dogs receive up to two years of intensive training—and that is before the further training they get during their working lives. They are not disruptive, because they are so highly trained. I have tested this on our family dog, Warwick. When we—the owners—go for a walk with our dogs, we lead our dogs across the road, but Warwick can lead me across the road.
These dogs are hygienic. The fact that the Food Standards Agency has confirmed that assistance dogs should be allowed entry to food shops and premises proves that. I have seen the facilities for blind owners to be trained on how to maintain the high standards of grooming required for these dogs, and vets regularly check them.
Because most blind owners keep their retired guide dogs, my Bill will go further and allow retired assistance dogs to have that same universal access. Those retired dogs are often still owned by their original users and are just as well trained as working assistance dogs. It is already recognised that they are well disciplined and that they present no risk of disruption or hygiene issues, so what reasons are there to refuse them and their handlers access? There is none.
Even if permitting access to assistance dogs were a burden on business owners—as I have outlined, it is not—the numbers involved are so small that any negative effects would be negligible. Just over 7,000 people in our country rely on assistance dogs, of which about 4,500 are guide dogs. That is just one person in every 10,000.
Currently, taxi and private hire vehicle drivers can be issued with exemptions from carrying assistance dogs on medical grounds. Some people are allergic to dogs—that is an unavoidable fact—but only taxi and minicab drivers can hold exemptions due to allergy. There are only 7,000 assistance dogs out there, so surely we can accommodate everyone. If it is a legal requirement for owners and employees in small shops to accept assistance dogs, why should taxi and PVH drivers be allowed a total exemption?
Since covid, protective screens for drivers have become widespread and are easy to fit. We need drivers to be trained to think ahead so that they have a solution to their dog allergy rather than refusing to carry a blind person. It is what we all do—we give consideration to how we can accommodate disability rather than reject disabled people—yet 81% of guide dog owners, according to research by Guide Dogs in 2022, have been refused access to taxis. Almost 63% had experienced that in the previous 12 months.
In 2016, a private Member’s Bill contributed to the formation of a Department for Transport task and finish group looking into that. Three years later, the Government agreed to make it a requirement for drivers to undertake disability equality training, yet, despite Government commitments, last year only 62% of authorities required disability equality training for taxis. In Northern Ireland, where training is required, instances of access refusals for taxis are rare. Training and forethought are the solution.
Equally clear is the solution to the problems that face assistance dog owners on foot. In 2019, 80% of blind or partially sighted people reported that pavement parking made it difficult for them to walk on pavements at least once a week, and more than 95% of people with sight loss stated that it had forced them to walk in the road. Consequently, one in five people with sight loss have been injured because of pavement parking. We should be helping these people, not impeding them.
The England blind football team train in Hereford. They stand as a testament to the fact that people with sight loss can do almost everything that someone who does not suffer visual impairment can. The next time someone thinks that they need to park on the pavement, they should try shutting their eyes when they try to take a shower and see what a mess they make. In London, where pavement parking has been heavily restricted since 1974, only 26% of people with sight loss face daily problems, while, in the country at large, that figure is 45%.
There are already ways for the police to fine obstructive vehicles, but enforcement is the issue. Prohibiting pavement parking would do a great deal to help people with sight loss. It has been done London, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, so it is possible and it does work. The Transport Committee’s report of September 2019 recommended it.
I know that the Government are committed to the wellbeing and equality of people who use assistance dogs. The Bill would make the lives of people with assistance dogs easier. It would also encourage and support people who use dogs—or perhaps want to use a dog—but are afraid of being made to walk home in the rain, barred from using a taxi or restaurant and forced off the pavement and into the traffic by pavement parking. Just imagine if that person was you.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Bill Wiggin, Henry Smith, Greg Smith, James Gray, Selaine Saxby, Mr David Jones, Dame Tracey Crouch, Mr Mark Francois, Dr James Davies, Bob Blackman and Rachel Maclean present the Bill.
Sir Bill Wiggin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 214).

Finance (No. 2) Bill

(Clauses 1 to 4, 12 and 13, and 19)

Considered in Committee
[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on the morning of 12 March 2024, on the Budget 2024, HC 625; oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on the afternoon of 12 March 2024, on the Budget 2024, HC 625; oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 13 March 2024, on the Budget 2024, HC 625; correspondence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Treasury Committee, on the Budget 2024, reported to the House on 1 May 2024.]
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Clause 1 - Income tax charge for tax year 2024-25

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of impact of section 2—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the expected impact of section 2 of this Act.
(2) The review must include analysis setting out the number of individual taxpayers facing a marginal tax rate in the tax year 2024-25 of—
(a) the basic rate of 20%, and
(b) the higher rate of 40%.
(3) For comparative purposes, the review must take account of—
(a) equivalent actual figures to those in subsection (2)(a) and (b) for the tax years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, and
(b) equivalent projected figures to those in subsection (2)(a) and (b) for the tax years 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.”
This new clause requires a review of how many people will be liable to pay income tax at 20% and 40%, and would compare figures for the current tax year with those for the three preceding and three subsequent tax years.
New clause 4—Review of impact of section 1 on pensioners—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the expected impact of section 1 of this Act on those over State Pension age.
(2) The review must include analysis setting out, for the tax year 2024-25—
(a) the total number of people over the State Pension age paying tax under section 1, and
(b) the average tax liability per person of those in subsection (2)(a).
(3) For comparative purposes, the review must take account of equivalent projected figures to those in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) for the tax years 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.”
This new clause requires a review of how many pensioners will be liable to pay income tax this year and in each of the next three years, and what the average pensioner’s tax bill will be in each of those years.
New clause 5—Impact of income tax and corporation tax provisions on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish an analysis of the impact of the measures in sections 1 to 4, 12 and 13 of this Act on—
(a) Wales,
(b) Scotland, and
(c) Northern Ireland.”
This new clause requires an analysis of the income tax and corporation tax measures in the Bill on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 6—Report on impact of section 2—
“Within three months of this Act being passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out—
(a) the number of taxpayers that will pay income tax at each rate during the tax year 2024-2025 under section 2;
(b) the number of those taxpayers that are pensioners or are of State Pension Age;
(c) comparative figures for each tax year since 2021; and
(d) comparative projected figures for each tax year to 2030.”

Nigel Huddleston: It is an honour to open the debate. I will start by setting out how, because of the progress the Government have made, we have been able to cut taxes as part of our plan to reward work and grow the economy.
The Government cut national insurance at both the autumn statement and the spring Budget and have made above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, with the basic rate threshold rising from £6,475 to £12,570 today. Taken together, those measures mean that an average worker on £35,400 in 2024-25 will save £1,500 more in personal taxes than they otherwise would have done. Due to the significant real-terms increases to the personal allowance, it is estimated that 1.8 million people will be taken out of income tax altogether by 2024-25, compared with the threshold rising in line with inflation from 2010-11. All workers can now earn £1,000 a month before paying any tax, due to the significant increases to the national insurance starting threshold, which we changed in July 2022.
Let me turn to the first four clauses of the Bill. Income tax is the largest source of Government revenue and helps to fund the UK’s schools, hospitals and defence, and other essential services we all rely on. In 2024-25, it is expected to raise more than £302 billion. Each year, the Government must legislate to charge and set rates of income tax, which is why we are all here today. Clauses 1 to 3 impose an income tax charge and set the rates of it for 2024-25. The rates are not changed by the Bill; rather, we are confirming that they will remain the same.
Clause 1 imposes a charge on individuals to pay income tax for the year 2024-25. Clause 2 sets the main income tax rates—namely the basic rate of 20%, the higher rate of 40% and the additional rate of 45%—for non-savings and non-dividend income of taxpayers in  England and Northern Ireland. Those rates are set separately from those in clause 3, as the income tax rates for non-savings and non-dividend income, such as earnings from employment, are devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and are set by their respective Parliaments. The decision to separate savings and dividends from other forms of income was made as part of the devolution settlement. It ensures that the UK system works effectively and coherently, recognising that dividend and savings income is generally more mobile and generated across the UK, and has some interactions with corporation tax, which is not devolved.
Clause 3 sets the default income tax rates at the same levels as the main rates—namely 20%, 40% and 45%—across the entire UK. These rates apply to the non-savings and non-dividend income of taxpayers who are not subject to the main rates of income tax or to Welsh or Scottish rates of income tax, such as non-UK resident individuals. The clause also sets the savings rates of income tax for all UK taxpayers, again at 20%, 40% and 45%.
As I mentioned, income tax is a vital revenue stream for our public services, without which we could not fund our schools, hospitals, defence and more. It is important that we keep it at its current level.

Jonathan Edwards: I receive emails from constituents asking me why the Government are not unfreezing the personal tax thresholds.

Nigel Huddleston: We all know that, because of the level of intervention that we had to take, out of necessity, during the pandemic and in response to the cost of living challenges, Government intervention was far greater than any of us anticipated—to the tune of £400 billion in the pandemic and £100 billion for the cost of living challenges. That money has to be paid back, and I think most of our constituents know that. We have seen the same pattern right around the world, where tax levels have had to be higher out of necessity. That means that thresholds have not been able to move in the way that we would normally like. However, now that economic circumstances are changing, we have turned a corner and we are able to reduce taxes, such as for the 27 million people who will receive on average an extra £900 through the national insurance cuts.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. He started by talking about some of the fiscal measures that the Government have taken to reduce tax, but by not unfreezing the personal allowances, are the Government not taking money from one pocket and putting it back in the other?

Nigel Huddleston: No. I advise the hon. Member and others to look at their wage slip from a few months ago—say, in December last year. They will see a direct impact because of the national insurance changes that we made in January and again in April. People will see that they are paying less national insurance than in the past. That is transparently and clearly a tax cut. We are able to reduce taxation because the direction of travel is changing.
Taxes have increased across the whole of the western world. Our tax level is projected to increase to about 37%, compared with around 39% in Germany, around  42% in Italy and around 46% in France. This is a phenomenon whereby Governments have had to intervene and spend more money and, as an obvious consequence, they have had to increase taxation to a greater level than anticipated or desired.
However, now that we are back to growth and on a firmer footing, the economy has turned a corner, and we are able to reward the hard work of the British public by reducing taxation. We are doing that in the form of income tax cuts. As the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have said on multiple occasions, we wish to continue in that direction of travel. As I said, people should look at their pay packets. I recognise that it is one thing to talk in the Chamber about implementing laws, but people will now see that in their pay packets in a meaningful way. An average worker on £35,400 will be £900 better off as a result of the national insurance cuts. That is a meaningful amount for constituents right across the country, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Another principle of taxation is fairness. Income tax is fair: those with the most contribute the most. The income tax system is highly progressive, with different rates of tax sitting above an internationally high personal allowance. The top 5% of income tax payers are projected to pay nearly half of all income tax in 2023-24. The top 1% are projected to pay more than 28% of income tax. Thanks to the personal allowance, almost a quarter of individuals will not pay income tax at all in 2024-25. It is important to note that the percentage paid by the top earners is greater than it was under the last Labour Government. In other words, the tax system is more progressive under the Conservatives.
Income tax is also internationally competitive. According to the OECD, the UK has some of the most generous starting allowances for income tax and social security contributions in the OECD, and the most generous in the G7—more generous than in France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and the US. According to the OECD, in the United Kingdom the average single worker faced a net average tax rate of 23.7% in 2023, compared with the OECD average of 24.9%. In other words, in the United Kingdom, the take-home pay of an average single worker after tax and benefits was 76.3% of their gross wage, compared with the OECD average of 75.1%.
I have talked a lot of statistics, but what they mean is more money in people’s pockets to spend as they wish—a fundamental Conservative philosophy. We have also been able to return some money to taxpayers now that inflation is falling and the economy is improving, by reducing national insurance contributions. We have put money back into people’s pockets. We have prioritised tax cuts for those in work, and we believe that that is the best way to stimulate growth in the economy overall.
Clause 4 continues the theme of maintaining the income tax arrangements by keeping the starting rate limit for savings at its current level of £5,000 for the 2024-25 tax year. Many colleagues may be familiar with this but some may not, so briefly by way of explanation, the starting rate for savings is an extra £5,000 tax-free allowance for interest from savings, specifically for individuals who have earned incomes of less than £17,570. That supports in particular people with low earned income, such as pensioners who are reliant on savings interest.
The Government made significant changes to the starting rate for savings in 2015, when they raised the threshold to get the starting rate for savings from £2,880 to £5,000, and lowered the starting rate for savings from 10% to 0%. As many Members will be aware, the starting rate limit for savings must be legislated for each year to confirm the band of savings income to which it applies. Again, that is what we are doing today. This clause will ensure that the limit is held at this level. It ensures simplicity and fairness in the tax system, while maintaining a generous tax relief and supporting the public finances by taking fiscally responsible decisions. As well as benefiting from the starting rate for savings—whereby, as I have said, individuals with earned income of less than £17,507 can earn up to £5,000 in savings income free of tax—savers are supported by the personal savings allowance, which provides up to £1,000 of tax-free savings income for basic rate taxpayers. They can also continue to benefit from the annual ISA allowance of £20,000. Moreover, in the spring Budget 2024 the Government introduced the British ISA, which will provide a new allowance of £5,000 in addition to the existing ISA allowance, along with a new tax-free savings opportunity for people to invest in the UK. Taken together, those generous allowances mean that about 85% of savers pay no tax on their savings income. The Government are committed to continuing to help people on all incomes and at all stages of life to save. The significant increase in the starting limit in 2015 means that the taxation arrangements for savings income remain generous, and the Government therefore believe that it is appropriate to retain the starting rate for savings at its existing value at this time.
The Government are managing the public finances in a balanced and responsible way. Our approach to delivering fiscal sustainability is underpinned by fairness, with those on the highest incomes paying a larger share. By maintaining the current rates of income tax and the starting rate limit for savings thresholds, we will ensure that the highest earners contribute more to the revenue, helping the Government to take a balanced approach to revenue raising while still supporting vital public services.

James Murray: I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition to new clauses 1 and 4, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).
“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”
Those are not my words but those of Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, following the spring Budget from which this Finance Bill derives. However, the IFS was not alone in its view. In response to the Budget, the Institute for Government was clear as well, saying that taxes were set to rise
“to a post-war high as a result of decisions made by Conservative chancellors over the past 14 years.”
Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research described the Chancellor’s announcements in March as a
“low-key budget…unlikely to unlock the UK’s growth and productivity problems”.
The verdict is clear. People in Britain are facing higher taxes, squeezed living standards and weaker public services, and they have a Government who are unable to undo the damage that they have caused. No matter what the Conservatives now say or do, the truth is that the tax burden is set to rise to its highest level in 70 years. The decisions taken by Conservative Chancellors in this Parliament—and, let’s face it, there have been a few of them—mean that the average family will face a tax bill that is £870 a year higher by 2028-29. For pensioners, it is even worse: people over the state pension ago do not even benefit from any changes in national insurance, which means that pensioner taxpayers will pay an eye-watering £960 more a year by the end of the forecast period.
People across Britain are struggling to make ends meet as they find their wages squeezed and taxes rising relentlessly, yet the Conservatives have decided to tell the British public that they have never had it so good. I note that Ministers are trying to do that again today, telling us that their plan is working, although that is not the reality of life for people who, at the next general election, will be asking themselves whether they and their families feel better off than they did 14 years ago. It is that reality that new clauses 1 and 4 seek to expose: as the Conservatives gaslight the British people, our new clauses are there to call them out.
New clause 1 does that by requiring the Government to come clean over how many people will be liable to pay income tax at 20% and 40% in the current tax year, how the number has changed over the last three years, and how it will change in the three years ahead. We want the Government to admit the impact that their six-year freezing of the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold will have. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, 3.7 million more people will be paying tax by 2028-29, and 2.7 million more will be paying the higher rate, as a result of the Government’s threshold freezes. Will the Minister repeat those figures and admit that they are correct? We believe that the Chancellor should be honest about this too, and that is what new clause 1 seeks to achieve.
We know that the outcome of the Conservatives’ decisions during the current Parliament is hitting pensioners who pay tax especially hard: because taxpayers over the state pension age do not benefit from any of the changes in national insurance, they will feel the impact of the Conservatives’ tax rises even more. That is why we tabled new clause 4—again, requiring the Chancellor to come clean about the impact of his and his predecessors’ policies. The new clause requires the Chancellor to set out the number of pensioners who will be liable to pay income tax this year and in each of the next three years, and what the average pensioner’s tax bill will be. Pensioners deserve to know the truth about how the Government’s decisions will affect them, and they have good reason to be concerned about this Government.
While Labour has guaranteed that the pensions triple lock will be in our manifesto and protected for the duration of the next Parliament if we win, the Conservatives refuse to say what impact on pensioners their £46 billion unfunded pledge to abolish national insurance altogether would have. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said yesterday, it is a tax bombshell aimed squarely at Britain’s pensioners. The Conservatives are refusing to  say how they would pay for this massive commitment, so it is hard not to suspect that they are concealing their plans to make pensioners pay the bill. Perhaps they will pay for the revenue lost through the abolition of national insurance by making changes to pension rates or to the state pension age, but if they are planning to keep pensions the same and make up the revenue by raising the basic and higher rates of income tax, that would mean an 8% increase in income tax rates.
My colleagues and I have asked Ministers time and again to come clean about how they would pay for their plans, but they resolutely refuse to do so. They could clear this up right here, right now, by either abandoning their unfunded commitment or explaining how they would pay for it. I would happily give way if the Minister would like to do that, but I suspect that he will not. We know that the Conservatives find the reality of their tax-raising record so hard to bear that they would rather hang on to a reckless, unfunded plan to abolish national insurance to make them feel better about themselves and to desperately try to keep their divided party together. It is crystal clear that for the Conservatives it is party first, country second.
We also know that the Conservatives’ high tax record goes hand in hand with their record of low growth in the economy. Indeed, one of the reasons taxes are so high is the fact that economic growth has been so weak over the past 14 years. Again, no matter what the current set of Ministers say, the idea that the economy is turning a corner is simply not reflected in reality. The truth is that our economy is smaller per person than it was when the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) became Prime Minister. Our country is forecast by the OECD to have economic growth of just 1% next year, weaker than that in every other G20 country except Russia. If, under the Conservatives, the UK economy had grown at the average OECD rate, it would now be £140 billion larger—and that growth would have provided an extra £50 billion in tax revenues to be invested in our public services. Instead, economic growth is on the floor, taxes are going up, and public services are falling over. That is the Conservative doom loop that we are in. We know that the only way out of the doom loop of ever-rising taxes with nothing to show in return is to get the economy growing with Labour’s plan.
Labour’s plan for economic growth is driven by the need for stability, investment and reform. Stability, something so sorely lacking in the recent years of Conservative chaos, must be the basis of a secure and responsible approach to the economy, and with strong fiscal rules, a new fiscal lock and respect for independent institutions, we will put stability at the heart of our approach.

Jonathan Edwards: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Gentleman mentioned Paul Johnson, whom the press has quoted today as saying that the Government and the Opposition are tied to the same fiscal path. Is that an ideological decision or a general election tactic? I am genuinely interested in hearing the answer.

James Murray: We in the Labour party believe that having fiscal rules that are iron-clad is essential to being trusted to manage the economy in a responsible way that puts family security and family finances first. Having strong fiscal rules and stability underpinning every other  decision that we make is absolutely essential to everything that a Government might hope to do. Indeed, that stability forms the foundation for getting the economy growing, because with stability we will be able to work in partnership with businesses to remove the barriers to investment, using catalytic public investment to unlock more than £20 billion from the private sector to invest in the industries of the future. To support that investment, we will reform the systems that our economy needs to thrive, from reform of our planning system and employment rights to devolving powers to elected Mayors on transport, skills, enterprise, energy and planning. That is how Labour will begin to grow the economy if we win the next general election.
We know that a new approach and a new Government are needed, because that is what people across the country are telling us. People want a new approach whereby they can feel better off, rather than struggling to make ends meet as their taxes rise relentlessly. The Conservatives are desperate to distract from the mess they have created. They go from the simply unbelievable, like the Chancellor claiming yesterday that they had abolished low pay, to the unbelievably reckless, like their £46 billion unfunded plan to abolish national insurance. But no matter what they say, or how hard they try to pretend that their plan is working and that people in Britain have never had it so good, people know the reality of life. People know that taxes are at record levels.
Today we want the Conservatives to at least come clean and admit how many more people are paying tax as a result of their decisions in this Parliament, and how hard they are hitting pensioners in particular. Frankly, however, no matter whether they come clean, come the general election, people across Britain will ask themselves whether they and their family feel better off today than they did 14 years ago. The answer to that question is the reality from which the Conservatives cannot hide.

John Redwood: I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to speak in support of tax-cutting proposals. We are not discussing the national insurance reductions in this group of clauses, but both previous speakers have spent some of their time discussing them because they are relevant, as they are the other side of the issues related to the correct levels and thresholds for income tax, which are the proper matter of our current debate. I wanted any kind of tax cut in the Budget, because we are over-taxed and the right kinds of tax cuts can speed up growth, which all the major parties in this House want, although there are some disagreements about the exact mix of policies that might create it.
The first thing we need from the Treasury is for its official forecasts and those of the OBR to have greater belief in the fact that if we promote more growth by cutting some tax rates, we may end up with more tax revenue. The best generator of more revenue to pay for our public services is a growing economy. The best generator of more growth is productivity improvements, and there is particular scope for such improvements in the public sector. The public sector was badly damaged by the covid experience. We lost a lot of productivity through the hasty and unnecessary reorganisation of  public services during the pandemic, but we are finding it hard work and slow going to get the lost productivity back.
I welcome the fact that, in the latest set of Budget numbers, the Government have put in future productivity recoveries over the next few years, but it is slow progress, even to get back to the levels of productivity in 2019. I put it to the Government that they do not need to spend extra money on new technology, such as artificial intelligence, to get back to the levels of 2019. They may wish to recommend schemes for AI investment to get above 2019 levels but, by definition, we were able to get to 2019 levels of productivity without AI, because it had not been invented at that stage.
There should be more common agreement about the urgency of productivity recovery in public services. We are missing out on at least £20 billion due to the productivity problems that have developed since 2020 and the lockdown experience. However, there is also a source of extra revenue from lower taxes, because if we cut tax rates in the right way, we will generate more cash, rather than less. I think everybody now agrees that cutting certain taxes has that effect, because it is quite obvious that if we impose certain kinds of turnover or activity taxes, they will lower turnover and activity. Indeed, many taxes are imposed with a moral wish to lower activity or usage rates. For example, alcohol and tobacco attract higher taxes because the wish is that people buy them less or, in the case of tobacco, do not buy them at all. We get the same effect with things that we should be promoting.
One of my proposals to the Government is that they should be extremely worried about the large decline in the number of self-employed people since 2019. Some of that the inevitable consequence of lockdown, which led to older people who were working for themselves being unable to work and deciding to retire a bit earlier, but quite a lot of it is not. Some of it is due to people of younger ages being deterred by their experiences, and some of it is because young people are not coming forward to replace those who were self-employed. It was not just lockdown or the disruptions around that time that caused this problem; it was also the IR35 tax changes, which went through in two tranches, culminating at about the time we experienced the problems of lockdown.
We have lost more than 800,000 self-employed people, partly through a self-inflicted tax wound. The decision was taken in two stages to introduce the idea that a person acting as the customer of a self-employed contractor has a duty to satisfy themselves about their tax status, and can be liable if they have made a mistake in their tax status. That meant it became extremely difficult for quite a lot of self-employed people to get contracts from both smaller and bigger businesses, because why would the executive take the risk that they could, in the end, be tied up in a dispute with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that they did not want? It was simpler not to allow a self-employed person to win a contract, because there was tax bureaucracy and an investigation that could put them both on the wrong end of a tax bill and on the wrong end of a moral issue where it looked as if they were helping someone to fiddle their taxes.
HMRC has always had issues with how to define someone as a genuinely self-employed person. There are lots of obvious requirements, because none of us wants to see people who are effectively employed by a single employer taking advantage of tax breaks that were designed to deal with the extra risk of being self-employed, including the lack of benefits that someone gets if they are genuinely self-employed. If they are not getting sick pay and paid holiday, they are in a rather different category from those of us who are employed, who get such benefits from our employer built into the overall package.
The normal sorts of tests include whether someone is working for more than one employer. Do they have a contract for services or an employment contract? Do they have sick pay? Do they have holiday entitlement? Do they have other benefits? These are the tests that we would normally apply to decide whether someone is genuinely self-employed. We have got too tough from the revenue side, and we have lost a lot of self-employed people. We are not recruiting the extra self-employed people we want, who are vital to the growth and vitality of an economy. If we had a few hundred thousand more self-employed people, they would be the innovators, the price cutters and the people who go the extra distance to provide an additional service. They would find customers and be useful challengers to the big businesses. They would not destroy the big businesses but would keep them on their mettle and make them understand that they, too, have to listen more to what customers want, because customer service improvement is often generated first by the self-employed or a small business.
I turn now to small businesses themselves. If a self-employed person takes the giant bureaucratic step of taking on an employee or two, they will have all the bureaucracy and the extra tax that goes with that. We need to make it as easy as possible for them to grow their small business, and I am very pleased that the Government have now said that they can raise the VAT threshold, because registering for VAT is a colossal additional commitment that a small business has to make. It means diverting a lot of energy into tax compliance, rather than finding more customers and serving them better, so we should seek to delay that until the business is rather bigger than the level that is currently recommended. I urge the Government, who I know are interested in a growth strategy, to allow people to put off the day when they have to register for VAT, so that they can concentrate rather more on that period of growth.
Turning to the issue of national insurance versus income tax, which we are about to vote on, I began my remarks by saying that I was happy to support the national insurance reduction. It will help those in employment and promote higher real incomes and more spending, which is what we need for a growth strategy and to cheer the country up a bit. However, we need to hear a bit more of the Government’s thinking before we turn the wider proposal—it is not yet proper policy, because it has not been given a budget or a timetable—into a firm manifesto pledge on our main priority for future tax changes. For example, we need a statement from the Government on how people will earn their entitlement to the state retirement pension if there are no longer any employee contributions, because our current entitlement to the state retirement pension is based on the number of years of contributions we  have made through NI. We can change that; this Parliament can do anything it likes on those sorts of issues, but it has not changed it yet.
I think this needs some kind of Green Paper or White Paper—some kind of thought-through model of what the state retirement pension scheme will look like if we want to end up with no employee national insurance contributions at all. It might require the abolition of the national insurance fund and having just a payroll tax on employers in the future, because the fund would not look quite the same without the employee contributions. At the moment, broadly speaking, the fund pays for the state retirement pension, with a little balance on top. Long gone are the days when it paid for the health service and many of the other benefits. If we read the details, we can see that there are just a few rather modest residual contributory benefits left. We need some kind of new presentation or analysis of what might happen to the fund.
It is also important to ensure balance and fairness in the distribution of tax reductions, so I think there have to be some tax reductions for those who have completed their working lives and are no longer in receipt of employment income. It would be wrong for the Conservative party to rule out tax reductions that help those who have retired—those who now have investment income because they saved hard and worked hard during their working lives. There needs to be some balance in how we allocate those reductions.
I would also say to the Government that, as they think forward to their next fiscal event, as I think we now have to call them—an autumn statement, a mini-Budget or whatever the latest terminology is—there is more scope in the numbers to have a better return of money to taxpayers than this quite cautious Budget we are voting on tonight gives us the opportunity to do. I do not think we can afford the incredibly expensive habits of the loss-making Bank of England. I fully understand that the Bank of England is completely independent in setting the base rate, setting out its inflation forecasts and conducting its monetary policy through the Monetary Policy Committee, and nothing I am suggesting would in any way interfere with that.
However, we have a parallel policy, which began under Chancellor Darling and the Labour Government and continued under successive Conservative Chancellors. It was always a joint policy of the Treasury and the Bank to create money to buy bonds and to create a jointly held portfolio. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer needed not only to give their authority to do that—proving that it was not an independent Bank policy—but to give an indemnity to the Bank against all losses. I say to those on the Treasury Bench that we, as a country, have now paid the Bank of England, I believe, £49 billion for losses over the last year and a half or so, and if we believe the OBR numbers, there are many tens of billions in losses to come over the next five years. Those losses come from three different sources, and some, although not all, are avoidable.
The Treasury and the Bank need to discuss those colossal losses and to understand that the United Kingdom and the Bank of England are now very much out of line with the practice of, say, the European Central Bank, which followed a similar policy of creating money and buying bonds in the bad days, but which is not trying to get rid of them all as quickly as the Bank of England.  The ECB is not selling them in the market at colossal losses, particularly the long bonds that are sitting on very large losses, because there is no need to sell them. Also, the ECB is not paying its full overnight rate on bank reserves, which would create a bigger running loss. The Bank of England never used to pay any money on reserves prior to 2006. The ECB has reinstituted zero interest on minimum reserves and has a lower deposit rate than the base rate. So I think there are things to learn from the European Central Bank so that the Bank of England could come back without such huge losses that substantially distort our fiscal policy.
The principle of independent monetary policy setting the base rate and forecasting inflation is important, but so too was the independence of fiscal policy from Bank and other outside interference. Now, however, the Bank of England is a dominant influence on our fiscal policy because its losses are so enormous, and that obviously affects what is available to spend or to offer by way of tax reductions. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench are in listening mode on these matters, because if sensible changes were agreed, we could look forward to a little bit more tax reduction and flexibility, and maybe a little more spending where we are hurting—on some features of the health service, perhaps—so that we could reinforce our growth policy with appropriate policies that were eminently affordable.
Members of the House who are interested will know that I am critical of the current control mechanism. I do not think it is very good. It would be much better to have something more like the American system, which has both an inflation and a growth control over the economy. I am suspicious of an economy that is effectively guided by a single five-year forecast by the OBR. I do not believe that the OBR or anybody else has much idea of what the budget deficit is going to be in five years’ time, because there are so many different things that can come along to change it. So, far from that being an iron rule, it is an arbitrary rule. Almost the only thing we know about that number is that it is likely to be wrong.
We need rather more concern about how much we are borrowing in-year and in the next year, because those two things are much more forecastable. I am not in favour of any expansion in the amount of borrowing planned for this year or next year. We have quite a lot of debt, which is why I have tried to identify ways in which the budget arithmetic and the fiscal arithmetic could look rather better if we cut the taxes that can generate more revenue and those that have a cost, but balance that with reductions in expenditure. I have looked at two big pots: Bank of England losses and productivity shortfall.
There is a third area to look for savings, which I know the Government are actively pursuing: getting people back into work and helping, supporting and encouraging those who feel that they cannot return to the workforce to be able to do so. I trust that this is generally supported around the Committee. It could enrich those people’s lives and raise their standard of living, but it could also add to our tax revenues and therefore make lower taxes or better public services that much more affordable. My only criticism of the Government’s efforts on this is that I would just like them to speed up. This needs doing more quickly and on a bigger scale.
The ideas that we have heard and the work that has been put in are, on the whole, very sensible, but we need better results, because a large number of people do not  feel that they can be part of the workforce at the moment, and I am sure that some of them could be better off if they felt they were getting the right support. Working has to be worth while, and that also requires the policy changes that are now going through to say that we are not always going to invite people in legally from abroad to do low-paid jobs when what we want is better-paid jobs in Britain and more jobs that engage the potential British workforce who are definitely out there.
I do not think we need the two new clauses kindly proposed by Labour, which probably already has quite a lot of the knowledge that the new clauses seek, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) implied. If we do not increase the thresholds, of course more people will end up paying tax. I do not want too many more people paying the higher rate of tax, but to get an upward shift in the thresholds in due course, we will need to go over the issues to see where we could free up some cash. The Government should look at the losses, the employment situation and productivity to find their crock of gold, and then we can all be happier.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Drew Hendry: As we scrutinise the Finance (No. 2) Bill in detail, starting with clauses 1 to 4, we see that the legislation serves as a profound symbol of a Government who have run aground. The Bill starkly exposes the UK Government’s complacency in the face of the cost of living crisis that continues to devastate homes across Scotland and, indeed, the other nations of the UK. Households are still reeling from the catastrophic decisions made by this Westminster Government.
As we have heard from the Government, clauses 1 to 4 are about household incomes, but the Bill falls dramatically short of meeting the urgent needs in our communities. I am used to this place lacking in humanity, but where is the humanity? It is never shown on these domestic issues. People in our communities need and want help. They want to know how they will pay for their soaring mortgage bills, their food bills—up by more than a quarter in the past two years—their ballooning car insurance premiums, their energy bills, which are still nearly 60% higher than in the winter of 2021-22, according to Library research, and much else. The clauses before the Committee do not really get to that issue.
The shadow Minister is right to talk about the per capita GDP issue in the UK, which is an utter disgrace, but what is Labour’s plan? More Brexit, more austerity and more being wedded to the fiscal rules that got us into this place. This is a damp and ineffective piece of navel-gazing from folk who had the wrong idea in the first place. Time and again, that idea has failed, but they have repackaged it and put it forward once more. Austerity is bust. It does not work, and it is madness for both the Conservative party and the Labour party to continue pursuing it, but that is what they do. This broken institution is not listening to people.
Clauses 1 and 2 could have invested in the economy. The Minister talks about devolution, but instead of devolution of investment, we are getting the devolution of his cuts. The spring Budget slashed Scottish capital  funding by 16.1%, severely restricting Scotland’s aspiration for new hospitals and more. I note that the shadow Minister was happy to quote the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and Labour and the Tories are both maintaining what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called a “conspiracy of silence” on the magnitude of the cuts required in the coming Parliament.
The former Labour leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale, makes it clear in an article published today that voting for Labour in Scotland would mean that people have to pay for tuition fees, and possibly for prescriptions and personal care. They are likely to see fewer child poverty interventions such as the Scottish child payment, an SNP initiative that is already lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. If they vote for Labour, people in Scotland are likely to see those things scaled back. That is the reality of the future under Labour: more austerity. Voting for a compliant, so-called Scottish Labour will have real-life consequences for the people of Scotland.
Although we will support Labour’s new clauses 1 and 4, which would offer some scrutiny of what is going wrong with the Government’s policy, Labour is ultimately only slavishly following this horrible, extremist, worn-out and clueless Tory Government, who are hollowed out by their right wing. It is testament to a Government devoid of ideas and vision, in this fag-end Parliament characterised by minimal legislative activity, that the Bill contains a mere 26 clauses, compared with last year’s 352.

John Redwood: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why Scotland grows less quickly than England, despite having more public spending per head?

Drew Hendry: Had the right hon. Gentleman done any real research, he would know that the figures for the UK are skewed dramatically by the overheated economy of London and the south-east, which buck the UK trend. If he looks at the figures for all the counties of England, including those in the north of England, he will see how the Government are letting down the people of England across the piece. But of course he does not want to do that. He just wants to make a lazy characterisation of what is happening, saying nothing about people’s potential, which is being ignored and run down by this place, this Government and the official Opposition, who have no idea how to change that.
Clauses 1 to 4 aim to maintain the current rates of income tax, including the savings rates, for another financial year. However, they do little to mitigate the Government’s broader fiscal missteps. In contrast, Scotland’s progressive approach to income tax under the SNP— I almost choked when we heard about progressive taxation earlier—has not only shielded public services from Westminster’s austerity but enhanced them, generating approximately £1.5 billion in additional revenue. We are protecting those on lower incomes, because most people in Scotland pay less income tax and dramatically less council tax than people in England.
All the scare stories about people leaving Scotland because of its progressive policies have proved to be rubbish. The report from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has shown that more higher-rate taxpayers have moved to Scotland. The revenue that the Scottish Government are attracting supports a wide array of social benefits, from free prescriptions to university  tuition, which significantly reduces the cost of living for Scottish residents. Those are all things that this Parliament would attack, and Kezia Dugdale has today posted a warning about what would happen if Labour got its hands on the Scottish Parliament.

Ben Lake: New clause 5, in my name, would require the UK Government to review the impact of the tax measures announced in the spring Budget on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Committee will, of course, recognise that the nations and regions of the UK differ in key respects—in their strengths, their weaknesses and their needs. To a large extent, the UK tax system operates as though economic and social conditions are uniform across these isles, so I would like the Government to consider what impact this universal approach to central taxation is having on different parts of the UK, in the hope that a better understanding of such matters will help to inform and improve tax policy decisions.
The laudable ambition to level up the nations and regions of the UK is testament to the different circumstances prevailing across these isles. The Welsh tax base is different from others in the UK. Wages in Wales are much lower than the UK average, productivity is lower, and our proportion of elderly citizens is higher. We should ensure that the tax system reflects that reality and, at the very least, we should make sure that we fully understand the differential impact of tax decisions, whether it be the freezing of the personal allowance, reductions to national insurance contributions, or decisions on corporation tax, on different areas.
I concede, of course, that some fiscal devolution has taken place and that the Welsh Government have the power to set supplementary Welsh rates of income tax. However, these powers are not as advanced as those possessed by the Scottish Parliament, which allow the Scottish Government to create new income tax band thresholds to better tailor their tax system to the specific needs of the Scottish people.
A review of the impact of income tax policy specifically on Wales could include looking at how it interacts with the current Welsh rates of income tax and inform the debate on any further devolution of tax-raising powers to Wales in the future. Extending the reviews to other devolved nations would allow for a comparative study on how UK tax policy interplays with the different fiscal devolution settlements in place across these islands, which would also be to the benefit of future tax policy decisions and any Government levelling-up strategy.

Jonathan Edwards: Following Brexit, the UK Government could have been extremely radical: they could have devolved corporation tax to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they could have fully devolved income tax and VAT. Is it not amazing that following Brexit, and all the pain that it has caused, there is a complete lack of ambition about using any powers that Brexit enables?

Ben Lake: I could not agree more. We were told that one of the supposed benefits of withdrawing from the European Union would be the liberty to tailor our tax powers; to devolve them to different parts of the UK in a bespoke way, so as to promote growth and better reflect the needs of the people. I agree that it is remarkable that the UK Government have thus far failed to make  real the supposed benefits of Brexit. This review of tax policy could touch on those things. It would also be useful given the important link between tax decisions and public spending and, indeed, economic growth.

John Redwood: Were a future Parliament to grant these tax powers to Wales, would the hon. Gentleman think that in order to promote faster growth in Wales he should cut taxes below English rates, or would he put them higher than English rates?

Ben Lake: I am not one to make up policy on the hoof, but the review could look at that, and if the evidence shows that tax decisions could be made to promote growth and to level up, which I think the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, we should follow that evidence and do so.
Our continued reliance on the Barnett formula to allocate funds between the UK’s nations is problematic not only due to its flaws, but because of its inconsistent application in recent years, which has meant that Wales has lost out on billions of pounds of much-needed public investment. Members will be familiar with the concerns raised by communities across Wales regarding the way in which HS2 spending has been classified. Although not a single inch of track or rail was to be  laid in Wales itself, it was categorised as an England and Wales project under the statement of funding policy, thus depriving Wales of significant consequential funding that the Barnett formula would otherwise have provided. The latest estimates suggest that Wales has lost £4 billion in consequential funding—money that could have transformed the country’s public transport infrastructure.
I understand that there will be reluctance within Government to move away from the Barnett formula, not least because devising a needs-based formula is far from simple. However, if we are to retain the Barnett formula, the funding floor should at the very least be updated to use census data from 2021 rather than the 2001 data it currently uses. I am sure the Minister will agree that much has changed since 2001—when I was actually still in primary school. The needs and population of Wales have changed considerably, so it is only reasonable that the funding floor element of the Barnett formula is at least brought up to date.
Such a consideration could be included in the review that I propose, as well as a review of the implications of UK tax policy in Wales. Again, all of this analysis and information could help inform debate for future tax policy decisions and ultimately ensure that we have a tax system that is fit for purpose and meets the needs of people in Wales.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the Members who have spoken for their contributions to the debate. As we have discussed, the Government have shown their commitment to keeping taxes low in order to support people to keep more of what they earn. That is why we have nearly doubled the income tax personal allowance since 2010, ensuring that some of the lowest earners do not pay income tax, while also benefiting higher-rate taxpayers.
The Government have shown that we are also committed to ensuring that older people can live with the dignity and respect they deserve, and the state pension is the foundation of state support for them. Thanks to the Government honouring our commitment to the triple lock, the basic and new state pensions increased by  8.5% this April—one of the largest ever cash increases in the state pension. Those on the new full state pension will therefore be £900 per year better off. That £900 figure is significant, because of course that is the average amount by which 27 million employees will benefit from the national insurance cut: £900 additional for many pensioners and £900 additional for 27 million workers. I think most people will agree that is fair.
Of course, the tax system treats pensioners fairly. Pensioners whose sole income is the full rate of the basic or new state pension do not currently pay any income tax. Individuals working above the state pension age also do not pay national insurance contributions, meaning they already pay a lower rate of tax on their income from work. This means that someone over the state pension age earning the average salary of £34,500 pays £1,826 less tax than someone underneath the state pension age as no national insurance contributions are paid on that income.
Turning to the amendments to the income tax measures, new clauses 1, 4 and 6 would require the Government to publish reports providing information on the number of income tax payers by their marginal rate, the number of pensioners paying income tax and their average tax liabilities. These reports would cover past years and forecasts for future years. The Government consider these amendments to be unnecessary given the information that is already publicly available. HMRC publishes statistics for past years that cover the number of income tax payers, including breakdowns by marginal rate and age, and the Department for Work and Pensions publishes figures for pensioners’ average incomes. The Office for Budget Responsibility is the Government’s independent forecaster, and most recently it published projections of the number of income tax payers for future years in its “Economic and fiscal outlook”—EFO—at the spring Budget. These also include breakdowns by marginal rate.
New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an analysis of the impact of the incoming corporation tax measures in this Finance Bill on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As Members will know, income tax rates for non-saving, non-dividend income in Scotland and Wales are set by their respective Parliaments. HMRC regularly publishes income tax statistics that include breakdowns by country—for example, it publishes the number of taxpayers in each nation and breaks this down by their marginal rates of income tax and by their age and sex. Corporation tax, which will be more substantially covered by the Exchequer Secretary later in proceedings, applies UK-wide, and clauses 12 and 13 maintain the current approach from April 2025. The OBR produces regular forecasts on the impact of the current policy being applied in future years and HMRC analyses receipts and liabilities in its annual corporation tax statistics publications. We therefore believe that these new clauses are unnecessary.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir John Redwood) for his comments—he always makes considered and thoughtful contributions. He rightly pointed out the importance of the low-tax strategy adopted by this Government, which is of course an instinct of all Conservatives: we increase taxes out of  necessary but always reduce them where possible out of choice. He was also right to point out the necessity of ensuring that we increase public sector productivity given that, as he recognised, it has fallen by about 5.9% since the pandemic. We need to get that productivity level up again and go further. He will be aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is very focused on this area.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham raised many other comments that we have spoken about directly, relating to the self-employed and the innovators of the UK economy, which I always take on board. He also mentioned the Bank of England, which of course is independent, and the separation of fiscal and monetary policy is a key feature of the UK’s economic framework. The Government do not comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy, but I am sure that many people will have heard his comments.
With the greatest respect, I will turn to the comments made by the Scottish National party spokesperson, whom I know well and like very much. I think even he will regret making comments such as a “right-wing extremist Government”—he knows better than that. We are not a right-wing extremist Government.

Drew Hendry: Just to be clear, I was saying that the Tories have been hollowed out by the extremists on the right wing within their Government, not that we have an extremist right-wing Government—that is, of course, for people out there to make their mind up about.

Nigel Huddleston: I think the hon. Gentleman just dug even deeper there. As I say, I like him but I do not always like what he says. On income tax, I do not think that everybody in Scotland would share his enthusiasm for the Scottish tax system, given that the thresholds and rates are higher, to the tune of up to 5%.
Turning to my opposite number, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), I will try to avoid the déjà vu all over again—we seem to have the same debate again and again. Yet again we have heard a Labour party spokesman constantly talking Britain down, as if we are in some declinist environment of failure upon failure. That is not a characterisation of the UK, its economy or our constituents that I recognise. I wish he had greater optimism and enthusiasm, and could support the UK economy and the workers to a greater degree. After all, the UK is doing incredibly well.
The hon. Member for Ealing North was right to recognise that all of our constituents are facing extraordinarily difficult times, but he is wrong to believe that is something unique to the UK economy; it is as a result of the pandemic and the cost of living challenges, which have had an impact right the way around the world. Given the extraordinary circumstances that the whole developed world has found itself in, what is extraordinary is how the UK has performed so well. I wish he would recognise the great optimism and the potential future of the UK economy.
For example, the International Monetary Fund has forecast that this country will grow faster than Germany, France, Italy and Japan over the next few years to 2028-29. The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, the UK economy has generated an average of 800 jobs per day. Since Brexit, the UK has gone up the global export league tables, from seventh to fourth. We are the second  largest exporter of services in the world and have reached record levels of service exports recently. We have overtaken France to become the eighth largest manufacturer in the world. We have the third largest tech economy, after the United States and China. We have the largest film, TV and creative industries sector in Europe, and one of the world’s leading biotech and life sciences industries—again, it is the largest in Europe.
We are leading the world in renewables, with the first, second, third and fourth biggest offshore wind farms in the world. I could go on, but I will not detain the Committee too much longer, Dame Eleanor. If the hon. Gentleman could recognise just one or a few of those success stories, he might have greater confidence in the UK economy and be able to talk it up. Anybody aspiring to be in government must champion the UK around the world, instead of talking us down. Otherwise, the impact they would have on investment in the UK economy is appalling.
Let me deal with the scaremongering in what the hon. Member for Ealing North and others have been declaring in the past few days about national insurance and the impact on pensions—I found that behaviour deplorable. It could be complete scaremongering because, as we have said, he is not aware of how NI impacts health and pensions. The amount of money spent on pensions is about £130 billion. Welfare spending is £260 billion. NHS spending is £160 billion. That is far higher than the total amount paid for by NI. So to try to suggest some direct correlation and say that reducing NI puts pensions at risk all of a sudden is either economically utterly incompetent or it is sheer scaremongering—neither are particularly attractive attributes in somebody aspiring to be in government. I therefore hope that he will have the decency to take that back. As I said, this scaremongering of pensioners, from the whole Opposition Front Bench, is despicable, although we can perhaps expect it from the Opposition.
Moreover, it is utterly hypocritical, because when we had the NI debate not so long ago, the Opposition spokespeople, the Opposition Front Benchers and the Leader of the Opposition said that they supported our NI cuts, but when it came to a vote they did not. That should make the British people ask: why would the Opposition say one thing and do another. First, I should say that is not a surprise to me, but could it also be that at some future point they might hope to be in a situation where they could reverse that decision and say, “We did not actually vote for it, after all”? Again, they should be straight with the British public.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions—some more than others. The debates will continue, but I hope that I have explained why we do not accept the new clauses. I ask that the clauses we have put forward should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Review of impact of section 2

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the expected impact of section 2 of this Act.
(2) The review must include analysis setting out the number of  individual taxpayers facing a marginal tax rate in the tax year 2024-25 of—
(a) the basic rate of 20%, and
(b) the higher rate of 40%.
(3) For comparative purposes, the review must take account of—
(a) equivalent actual figures to those in subsection (2)(a) and (b) for the tax years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, and
(b) equivalent projected figures to those in subsection (2)(a) and (b) for the tax years 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause requires a review of how many people will be liable to pay income tax at 20% and 40%, and would compare figures for the current tax year with those for the three preceding and three subsequent tax years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 276.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4 - Review of impact of section 1 on pensioners

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the expected impact of section 1 of this Act on those over State Pension age.
(2) The review must include analysis setting out, for the tax year 2024-25—
(a) the total number of people over the State Pension age paying tax under section 1, and
(b) the average tax liability per person of those in subsection (2)(a).
(3) For comparative purposes, the review must take account of equivalent projected figures to those in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) for the tax years 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause requires a review of how many pensioners will be liable to pay income tax this year and in each of the next three years, and what the average pensioner’s tax bill will be in each of those years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 212, Noes 274.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12 - Charge and Main Rate for Financial Year 2025

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 13 and 19 stand part.
New clause 2—Review of impact of section 12—
“(1) The Chancellor must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.
(2) The review must consider how the rate of corporation tax provided for by section 12 affects—
(a) investment decisions taken by businesses,
(b) the certainty of businesses about future fiscal and market conditions.
(3) For comparative purposes, the review must include an assessment of how the factors in subsection (2)(a) and (b) would be affected by maintaining corporation tax at a rate no higher than that set out in section 12 until the end of the next parliament.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to conduct a review of how the rate of corporation tax set by the Bill set out in clause 12 affects business investment and certainty, including what the effect would be of capping it at its current level for the next Parliament.
New clause 3—Analysis of the impact of the energy security investment mechanism—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish an analysis of the possible impacts of the energy security investment mechanism on—
(a) revenue from the energy profits levy, and
(b) investment decisions involving businesses liable to pay the energy profits levy.
(2) The analysis under subsection (1) must consider how the impacts in (1)(a) and (1)(b) would be affected by amending the definition of a qualifying accounting period, as set out in section 1 of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, to be one that ends before the end of the next Parliament.
(3) In this section, the “energy security investment mechanism” means the mechanism introduced by section 17A of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, as inserted by section 19 of this Act.”
This new clause seeks to establish the impact on revenue and investment decisions of the energy security investment mechanism being introduced, and how this impact would be affected in a scenario where end date for the energy profits levy was amended to be before the end of the next Parliament.
New clause 7—Review of impact of section 13 on small and medium enterprises—
“(1) Within 3 months of this Act being passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the impact of section 13 on small and medium enterprises.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider the extent to which paying corporation tax at the small profits rate, rather than a higher rate, enables small businesses to manage cost pressures including those arising from—
(a) energy costs;
(b) staffing and recruitment costs;
(c) borrowing costs;
(d) raw material costs.”

Gareth Davies: We now move on to debate clauses 12, 13 and 19. Before I delve into the detail of the clauses, however, let me first briefly set out how they fit into this Finance Bill.
The Government remain focused on taking long-term decisions to strengthen the economy by driving productivity, increasing the number of people in high-wage, high-skilled jobs, and boosting investment. The Government are also ensuring that the tax system is as competitive as we can make it under very difficult economic circumstances. We have some of the most generous investment incentives among major economies, including full permanent expensing, which the OBR has forecast will generate almost £3 billion of additional business investment each year, or £14 billion over the next five years. It has forecast that that additional investment will increase GDP by 0.1% by the end of the forecast. In addition to full expensing, we have an internationally competitive corporation tax rate—the lowest headline rate in the G7—which this Bill legislates to maintain.
I will now turn to clauses 12, 13 and 19 in more detail. Clauses 12 and 13 set the charge for corporation tax from April 2025. This includes both the main rate and the small profits rate, as well as the thresholds at which those rates apply. The charge for corporation tax must be set every year. It is important to legislate annually in advance, as this provides certainty to large and very large companies that pay tax in advance on the basis of their estimated tax liabilities. These clauses maintain the current main rate of 25% and the small profits rate of 19%, as introduced in April 2023. Tax certainty is of great importance to businesses—I think that is something we can all agree on—and clauses 12 and 13 ensure that they will continue to benefit from stable and predictable tax rules. By maintaining the current rates, the Government have struck the right balance between remaining competitive and raising vital revenue.
Clause 19 makes changes to ensure that the energy profits levy will no longer apply if oil and gas prices return to historically normal levels for a sustained period of time. It does so by introducing legislation to give effect to the energy security investment mechanism, or ESIM. The EPL was introduced in 2022, at a time of near-record high oil and gas prices, but it is right that should those prices return to historically normal levels, the additional tax would cease to apply. The detail of how the ESIM operates was set out in the  technical note published alongside the 2023 autumn statement; this Bill simply puts that detail on a legislative footing and provides for secondary legislation to legislate for the administrative details of how that check is made.
Current oil and gas prices are higher than normal, and OBR projections indicate that high prices will persist over the next five years. The ESIM is a mechanism that switches off the EPL if, for a period of six months, the average prices of both oil and gas fall below set thresholds. Those thresholds are currently $74.21 per barrel for oil and 50p per therm for gas, and are based on a 20-year historical average to the end of 2022—before higher energy prices began—and are adjusted each April based on the annual change in the preceding December’s consumer prices index. By providing certainty on the conditions under which the levy will be disapplied, the Government are supporting investor confidence in the sector and helping to protect domestic energy supply, the economy, and of course jobs.
Clauses 12 and 13 provide certainty to businesses by maintaining the current rates of corporation tax, and clause 19 has been welcomed by the oil and gas operators and their investors, with the ESIM providing the sector with certainty to support future investment in the UK—in jobs and in our energy security—while also ensuring fairness to taxpayers. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

Nigel Evans: I call the shadow Minister.

James Murray: Thank you, Mr Evans, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Opposition to new clauses 2 and 3, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).
Earlier this afternoon, we pressed the Government on the impact of tax rises, particularly stealth tax rises, on families and pensioners. Of course, it is not only taxpayers and their families who are struggling to make ends meet under the Conservatives. Businesses in Britain are struggling too, and when I meet those from businesses across all sectors, of all sizes and in different parts of the country, they are clear that they want a Government who support them to succeed and grow. What the people I speak to from businesses want from Government, first and foremost and above all else, is stability, predictability and a plan for growth. Stability is greatly prized by businesses, which want to make decisions about investment and growth, which are critical to creating jobs and making people across Britain better off.
That stability is nowhere to be seen under the Conservatives, who have been governing, in a fairly loose sense of the word, through chaos and U-turns. That needs to change if Britain is to reach its potential, and it will change if we win the next general election. If we do, Labour will bring the stability that businesses need to plan ahead. One of the key ways that we have pledged to offer businesses the stability and predictability that they need is through our plan for a road map for business taxation. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, Labour would publish this road map in our first six  months in office to give businesses the stability, predictability and long-term plan that is so important to making investment decisions.
We have already pledged that our road map will include our commitment to capping corporation tax at 25%, and with that in mind, we have tabled new clause 2. It sets out our commitment, if we win the next general election, to bring certainty back for businesses by capping the rate of corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness, but we believe that the current rate of 25%, the lowest in the G7, strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and keeping our corporation tax competitive in the global economy.
I hope Treasury Ministers accept our new clause, or if not, perhaps they would like to take this opportunity to follow our lead and also commit to a 25% cap on corporation tax for the whole of the next Parliament if they win the next general election. This is an opportunity for Ministers to show that they understand the importance of stability and certainty. If the Minister would like to intervene to match our commitment to capping corporation tax, I would be happy to give way. No? Why not? Maybe his boss does not agree. Let us not forget that two years ago, the current Chancellor went from advocating a four-point cut in corporation tax to advocating a six-point rise within just a few months. No wonder the Conservatives struggle to make any commitments on tax certainty now.
The truth is that the Conservatives have become unable to offer the stability and predictability that businesses need to invest. That stability is crucial to encouraging private sector investment and getting our economy growing. Our pledge on capping corporation tax and publishing a business taxation road map sits alongside our wider approach to offering stability, not least through our iron-clad fiscal rules, our new fiscal lock, and our respect for independent economic institutions. I know from our conversations with so many businesses that there is huge potential for private sector investment in Britain, and I know how vital a stable Government are for that to be realised, because businesses want and need a Government who will offer them a partner in growth. They need a Government who will offer stability, provide strategic public investment and reform the way our country works, in order to bring down the barriers to growth. That is how Government should be working with businesses to help them grow, create jobs and make people across Britain better off.
Alongside clauses 12 and 13 on corporation tax, this group focuses on clause 19, which introduces a new energy security investment mechanism in relation to the energy profits levy or windfall tax. As I set out on Second Reading, we fully support the mechanism. We very much welcome the signal it sends, which will help with investor confidence in the UK’s offshore energy sector. As we have set out, if we win the next general election, Labour will make the windfall tax stronger, in order to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition. However, as we have also set out, we want to give as much certainty as possible to the companies affected. That is why our new clause 3 sets out our commitment that if we win the next election, the energy profits levy will end no later than the end of the next Parliament. We made that commitment when we announced our plans, and it is now in the new clause before us. We  recognise that, by its very nature, the windfall tax is a one-off levy in response to extraordinary profits, so it is right to be clear about when it will come to an end.
Let me be clear that our reason for wanting to extend and strengthen the windfall tax is to raise revenue that we need to support our country’s transition to clean energy. This critical transition will create jobs in the industries of the future, bring down bills for households and businesses, and give us energy security and independence. Our plan is to make this transition by 2030, and we need to work hand in hand with the private sector to make that ambitious aim a reality. Many of the firms paying the windfall tax are the same ones that are and will be investing in the clean energy industries of the future. Many of those firms’ employees will work in the clean energy industries of the future, too. We are committed to working closely with all those businesses and employees affected, including through Great British Energy, which will be our new national energy champion, based in Scotland, and through our new national wealth fund to manage this important transition together.
As I have set out, if Labour wins the next general election, we will form a new Government who can once again be a reliable and effective partner to businesses, to help them grow. We will offer stability with our corporation tax cap, our road map for business taxation, and our commitment to unbreakable fiscal rules. That stability will help businesses considering investment decisions, as will our strategic public investment, part funded by the windfall tax, which will help crowd in private sector funding. We will make sure that investment can achieve its potential by reforming the way that our country works. From planning to pensions and grid connections, we will remove barriers that stand in the way of economic growth. That is how we will get the economy growing after 14 years of economic failure from the Conservatives.
As I said earlier this afternoon, if the UK economy had grown under the Conservatives at the rate of the OECD average, it would now be £140 billion larger, providing an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services. Instead, the legacy of the Conservatives’ time in office is one of low growth, working people worse off and taxes rising while public services decline. Ahead of the general election, people will ask themselves whether they and their family feel better off than they did 14 years ago. They will ask themselves whether our hospitals, our schools or our police work better. Frankly, they will ask whether anything in Britain works better than it did when the Conservatives came into office 14 years ago. The choice at the general election will be between five more years of chaos with the Conservatives, or stability with a changed Labour party, and our long-term plan to make working people better off. The Conservatives may try to claim that Britain’s economy has turned a corner, but the truth is that the British people want to turn the page. It is time for a general election.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. I wish to speak briefly on clause 12 stand part and the new clause to which he has just spoken.
Clause 12 is a simple clause. The title is “Charge and main rate for financial year 2025”, and it states:
“Corporation tax is charged for the financial year 2025…The main rate of corporation tax for that year is 25%.”
Just over four years ago, I was re-elected to this House on a Conservative party manifesto that said that we would keep corporation tax at 19% and would not increase it. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) just reminded us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that 19% was far too high, and he had a radical proposal to reduce it to 15%. At the time, I did not buy into that leadership bid of his, but it is clear now that it was an extraordinary gesture, completely at odds with what he must believe, because I presume that he supports clause 12, which sets corporation tax for the following year at 25%. That is far too high. I voted against the increase originally, and if clause 12 stand part was pressed to a Division today, I would certainly vote against it.
It was with some incredulity that I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing North. His new clause 2 talks about reviewing the impact of section 12. The incoherent subsection (1) says:
“The Chancellor must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.”
Obviously, section 12 will not come into effect until the 2025 financial year, while the Bill will be on the statute book within a couple of months. What would be the point of conducting, within three months of that date, a review into something that will not come about until next year? If the new clause mentioned reviewing the impact of the current high levels of corporation tax, I would be with him. [Interruption.] He is shouting at me from a sedentary position. I will happily give way to him, so that he can make his point. Let us have a debate. If he does not want to engage in debate, so be it.
All I am doing is reading out the terms of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 2. If he wishes to resile from that, let him say so. I am sure that, even at this late stage, Mr Evans, you would accept him withdrawing the new clause because its terms do not bear out what he is telling us.

James Murray: The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. The key point of the new clause, as I am sure he realises, is to make it clear that Labour would cap corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. Does he agree with that?

Christopher Chope: No, I do not, because that would be capping corporation tax at far too high a level. I would like to see it reduced, ideally back to 19%, as soon as possible. I certainly would not support any notion that we should stick with a 25% rate for the duration of the next Parliament.
That intervention was interesting. If that is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I think we can say that it is rather opaque, because it does not say, for example, “Between 2025 and 2030, corporation tax shall be set at the rate of 25%”. It says that there should be
“a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.”
What would the review look at? One thing would be how the 25% rate of corporation tax provided for by section 12 had affected
“investment decisions taken by businesses”.
Surely we know—I think he said so in his remarks—that having corporation tax set at 25% adversely affects businesses making investment decisions, including decisions on whether to increase their investments, or whether to invest in the United Kingdom for the first time. It is because such adverse investment decisions have been taken by businesses that, as he accepts, we have low growth, coupled with rising taxes and a stagnant economy.
It surprises me that more of my colleagues do not wish to engage in this debate. I very much support those Government Members who believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s main objective should be to grow our economy, rather than stifle it through high taxes and more regulation, which seems to be what is happening.
In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question—high rates of corporation tax adversely affect investment decisions taken by businesses—so why do we need a review to establish that? How can he both want a review because he does not know the answer to that question, and be so confident about its results that he can announce today that corporation tax will be at 25% for the next five years? It seems a pointless exercise. One is left with the feeling that the main parties have very similar policies on many aspects of taxation.

Drew Hendry: That is what I have been saying.

Christopher Chope: Both parties support very high levels of tax. They are not as high as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) would like them to be, but who knows? If there is a Labour Government, then where Scotland leads on taxation, I am sure that the rest of the United Kingdom will follow. When he responds, I would like the Minister to take up the challenge from the hon. Member for Ealing North and tell us whether he supports 25% for the next four or five years. I would like him to say, “No, 25% is far too high. Perhaps we have to put up with 25% for 2025, but thereafter, if re-elected, we the Conservatives will reduce corporation tax steadily back to 19%, or even to 15%, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer aspires to do.”

Drew Hendry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s contention that there is no real difference between the Tories’ proposals and those of the Labour party—a point I have made many times. Does he agree that progressive taxation in Scotland has seen the majority of taxpayers pay less, and those who have a bit more pay more? More higher-rate taxpayers have moved to Scotland during that time, which has protected some of the services. That is not on offer on either side of this House.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman misunder-stands the dynamic effects of taxation. I was privileged to be in this House when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Lawson of Blaby, announced the dramatic reduction in the top rate of tax to 40p in the pound. As a consequence of that reduction, the overall tax yield went up. The burden on individuals was reduced, thereby causing them to work harder to retain their energies for what was happening in our economy, rather than taking their talents overseas. The hon. Gentleman talks about wanting a progressive tax rate in Scotland, but that leads to people becoming  collectively poorer. We can see from recent statistics that the Scottish economy is stumbling and failing, because of the misguided policies of the Scottish National party.
That is a bit off the point of whether we support keeping corporation tax at 25%. I certainly do not, and I hope we get confirmation that the Government have aspirations to reduce corporation tax. When my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, he said that we need to be stable and predictable. He praised our system of complicated allowances against corporation tax. I would support more tax simplification. If we keep the basic rate down and reduce the allowances, that makes taxation simpler and reduces the need for extra people in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to deal with all that. It probably undermines the burgeoning accountancy profession, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Whatever happened to tax simplification? A specific committee was set up to deal with tax simplification and measures used to be brought before this House. That has all been abandoned in favour of evermore complex tax arrangements. Far from being stable and predictable, they are unstable and unpredictable because no one knows how those extra complications will be avoided or exploited by those affected. Hon. Members can tell that I am not a happy bunny on this issue, because we are not committed to reducing corporation tax in the long term. We do not seem to recognise the adverse impact that it has on our productive economy and our ability as a nation to grow that economy and thereby provide the extra revenue we need for public services.
I also despair that there are so few of my own colleagues who wish to reinforce the point and get the message out to our constituents and to businesses in our constituencies. That message is “Stick with us, because we find the current levels of corporation tax intolerable. We introduced them because of extraneous circumstances over which we say we had too little control, but do not worry: as soon as those extraneous circumstances are removed from the equation, we will revert to being a low corporation tax party.” Let us have an announcement to that effect today. In the meantime, however, let me say that if clause 12 is put to the vote, I shall vote against it, and I shall certainly vote against new clause 2 for the reasons I have given.

Drew Hendry: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Given that we are not really pressed for time today, unless Mr Hendry intends to speak for up to four hours—

Drew Hendry: I do not intend to do so.

Nigel Evans: Yes, I can see that.
As both candidates are present, I will now announce the results of the ballot held today for the election of the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee: 290 votes were cast, two of which were invalid, and Dame Jackie Doyle-Price was elected with 161 votes. She will take up her post immediately. I congratulate her on her election. The results of the count will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and will be published on the internet.
We now come to the four-hour speech from Drew Hendry.

Drew Hendry: Thank you, Mr Evans. I will do my best to accommodate your request, as usual.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to clauses 12 and 13. The fact is that these clauses maintain the status quo on corporate taxation while failing to support sectors in dire need, such as our hospitality industry, which has seen more than 500 closures in the past year alone. The SNP has repeatedly called for measures such as VAT relief for that sector to alleviate the pressures, but the UK Government have consistently ignored our calls, thus demonstrating a clear disregard for the economic challenges facing Scotland.
Where is the support for our town centres and high streets? Enterprise initiatives such as “VAT-free streets” could help to breathe new life into our vital centres. The SNP has called for urgent help, but again Westminster just shrugs its shoulders and ignores its responsibilities for the damage caused through its calamitous but—as we have seen, and it is worth repeating—unanimous devotion to a disastrous Brexit, to waste and to mismanagement.
The proposed energy security investment mechanism, adjusting the parameters for windfall taxes on the basis of oil and gas prices, represents a missed opportunity to genuinely bolster our energy security and accelerate our transition to net zero. Rather than leveraging these revenues to mitigate energy costs for households who, as I said in our previous debate, are struggling under the current punishing cost of living crisis, or to invest in sustainable growth—and probably the only industrial strategy available to us is investment in renewable energy—this mechanism is poised to jeopardise up to 100,000 jobs and hinder our environmental goals.
Moreover—and there is no hiding place—the Labour party’s screeching U-turn on the £26 billion a year required to stimulate the industrial green transition, which its members know their own advisers have said is the minimum required, and on its proposal to intensify the windfall tax to fund nuclear projects in England is entirely unacceptable, meaning the utilisation of Scotland’s resources for projects that contravene our national interests.
We will support Labour’s new clause 3, because at the very least it will show the opportunity that has been wasted, and the squandering of Scotland’s natural resources, in a clearer light. However, the Bill underscores a critical disconnect between the needs of the Scottish people and the actions of this Government, and indeed this place of Westminster. It is a Bill that perpetuates inequality, neglects economic innovation and leaves our most vulnerable citizens to bear the brunt of its failures.
Having debated these clauses today, let us be mindful of the stark reality: only a Government attuned to the aspirations and challenges of Scotland can genuinely deliver the change we urgently need. That Government should have all the powers to make the changes needed to represent the values of the Scottish people. That needs to be the Government of an independent Scotland that seeks to regain our equal seat at the centre of the European Union.

Gareth Davies: I was waiting for a four-hour speech and it never came—that was four minutes, but what a four minutes!
Let me thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I will respond to some of the points that have been raised at the end of my remarks, but before doing so let me directly address some of the new clauses that have been tabled.
New clause 2 seeks the publication of a review into how the rate of corporation tax set by the Bill, as set out in clause 12, affects business investment and certainty, including what the effect would be of capping it at its current level over the next Parliament. I agree that it is important to regularly review and evaluate policy, and the Government keep all tax policy under review. The Office for Budget Responsibility produces regular forecasts, including of projected corporation tax receipts and business investment. These forecasts are based on the rates and thresholds that currently apply, and which clause 12 maintains from April 2025 to provide advance certainty to businesses. The latest of the forecasts already looks as far ahead as 2028-29 on the basis of the corporation tax rate, which currently stands at 25%, so no further action is required from the Government.

Sarah Olney: The Bill maintains the small profits rate of corporation tax at 19%, but does the Minister not agree that this is a drop in the ocean compared with spiralling costs in energy, staffing, borrowing and a host of other areas? The Chancellor could have used the opportunity to give small businesses a boost by reforming business rates, or by helping them with their energy bills through a proper windfall tax. Does the Minister support new clause 7, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would ensure that the Government must lay before the House a review of the impact of the small profits rate to look at whether it really helps small businesses to manage their costs.

Gareth Davies: I will give the hon. Lady the courtesy of addressing new clause 7 in due course. She is right to highlight that the new rate for small businesses will keep around 70% of businesses in the country at 19% when those that are most profitable move to 25%, but look at the entire package of support for small businesses. It shows that the Government are supportive of our high streets and small business entrepreneurs across the country, whether that is through the increase in VAT thresholds, the 75% rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, or all the support that we provided during the covid pandemic and throughout the energy shock, including the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills support scheme. I put it to her that we are behind our small businesses. We regard them as the engine of our growth, and we will continue to do everything we can to support them. I will come on to new clause 7 in a moment, if I may.
New clause 3 would require a review of the possible impacts of the energy security investment mechanism on energy profits levy revenues, and on investment decisions in the oil and gas sector. It would require this assessment to be made on the basis of the end date of the EPL falling before the end of the next Parliament.
The Government have already published the tax information and impact note, which sets out the anticipated impact of the energy security investment mechanism—the ESIM. This indicates clearly that the mechanism will  give operators and lenders to the oil and gas industry confidence in the fiscal regime while the EPL remains over the next Parliament. Based on the OBR’s current price projections, the ESIM is not predicted to trigger before the end of the EPL in March 2029, and is therefore expected to have no impact on EPL revenues. In addition, should there be interest in calculating forgone revenue if the EPL were to end in a particular year, the OBR has published projected EPL revenues over the forecast period, and the impact of the EPL ending early can be calculated from this publicly available information that is there for all to see.
Regarding the assessment of the investment decisions within the oil and gas sector, the Government have been clear that they want oil and gas companies to reinvest their profits here in the United Kingdom, and by legislating for the ESIM we are giving these companies and their investors the confidence that if prices fall, the EPL will cease. This allows the sector to continue investing in the economy, in jobs and in UK energy security while ensuring fairness to the taxpayer, as I said earlier. Indeed, when the ESIM was first introduced, the Offshore Energies UK trade body agreed that the ESIM was a step in the right direction to support confidence and investment in the sector. However, it should be noted that there are of course commercial decisions to be made, and it is not possible for the Government to make an assessment of the impacts of the ESIM on the decisions of commercial organisations.
New clause 7 seeks the laying of a report before this House within three months, assessing the impact of clause 13 on how small and medium enterprises manage their costs. The introduction of the small profits rate last year kept the rate of corporation tax at 19% for companies with profits of less than £50,000, and the availability of marginal relief means that companies with profits between £50,000 and £250,000 pay below the main rate of 25%. This ensures that companies have greater post-tax profits to reinvest, to distribute and to retain to cover future costs and any shocks in the economy. Clause 13 simply maintains this approach from April 2025 onwards, providing advance certainty to taxpayers.
More broadly, it should be noted that our corporation tax rules are based on the fundamental principle of taxing profits net of costs. HMRC already releases its corporation tax statistics publication annually, which breaks down data on corporation tax liabilities by the size of company. Once tax returns covering the period since the small profits rate was introduced come in, this will be reflected in the data, but I am afraid that that will not happen within the next three months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) made a typically colourful speech. He made some very valid points, with which many in the Committee will agree. We all want tax to come down. As I said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), we have included a provision and a rate to ensure that 70% of businesses—the smallest, least profitable businesses—maintain a rate of 19%. We had to increase the rate in the face of an incredibly challenging environment on the back of covid and the war in Ukraine, when the Government stepped in with significant support for businesses, families and individuals  across the country. I can tell my hon. Friend that the extension to 25% will raise £85 billion, which will help to reduce our debt over the long term.
We have introduced full permanent expensing, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and I think it is fair to say that he was sceptical of that. However, it was called for directly and clearly by the CBI, Make UK and a number of businesses that want to reinvest their profits into other endeavours and into plant and machinery. I put it to him that we should be looking at the effective rate of taxation for a business, not just the headline rate, but that our headline rate for the largest, most profitable businesses is, at 25%, still the lowest in the G7, which is the most comparable mix of countries to look at.
Of course we want to see tax simplification in all our fiscal statements, which is why we decided to abolish multiple dwellings relief in our last fiscal event. It is also why the Chancellor has set out his long-term ambition to abolish national insurance contributions, which would simplify our tax system substantially.
This is all in the context of a country that remains one of the most competitive in the world, but it is not just about taxation; it is about planning, our rule of law and our amazing educational institutions. That is why Tata recently invested in a 40 GW gigafactory in Somerset, it is why Ørsted has decided to build the world’s biggest offshore wind farm in this country, and it is why AstraZeneca has decided to invest £450 million in a new R&D centre.
Investors look at a range of factors. It is not just about taxation; it is also about regulation. It is remarkable that the shadow Minister did not mention the Labour deputy leader’s obsession with introducing 70 new regulations on business, which would hinder business investment. It is the certainty of a Labour Government’s introduction of regulation that will hinder business investment, not anything that this Government have done in office. Looking at our achievements when it comes to business investment, the facts remain clear.

Christopher Chope: Looking ahead to the next Parliament, and hoping that there will be a Conservative Government, can my hon. Friend say to all those in the business community who are watching eagerly that a 25% headline rate of corporation tax is too high, and that we want to lower it?

Gareth Davies: We agree. We want taxes to come down, but we are not going to announce tax decisions from this Dispatch Box outside fiscal events. It is clear for all to see that this Conservative Government believe in lower taxes. We have reduced national insurance contributions for 29 million people by some 30% in just the last six months, and the record is very clear on that.

James Murray: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not in the habit of making policy commitments outside the normal fiscal process. Does that mean the £46-billion unfunded black hole created by the promise to abolish national insurance is no longer a policy of this Government?

Gareth Davies: It is neither unusual nor incorrect for a Government, or any party, to set out a long-term ambition to let the public know where we stand on taxation and what we want to see in the future. In 2010,  for example, we said that we wanted to increase the personal allowance for income tax to £10,000, and we met that. Actually, we exceeded it. It is now over £12,500, so a person in this country can earn £1,000 every month without paying any tax at all. That is a long-term ambition that we have delivered.

James Murray: The Minister is being generous in giving way. I notice that he is keen to talk about a long-term ambition to abolish national insurance. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Treasury questions that
“our policy is to abolish employees’ national insurance”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 437.]
Was the Chancellor wrong?

Gareth Davies: As I said, it is a long-term ambition. It is right for a party that is serious about governing to set a direction for the country. I know it is an unusual idea for the hon. Gentleman that having a plan for government is the right thing to do, but we have made it very clear to the British people that, if they vote for a Conservative Government at the next general election, their taxes will come down.
The amendments before the Committee propose that we publish information that is already publicly available. They are not needed, so I urge the Committee to reject them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Review of impact of section 12

“(1) The Chancellor must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.
(2) The review must consider how the rate of corporation tax provided for by section 12 affects—
(a) investment decisions taken by businesses,
(b) the certainty of businesses about future fiscal and market conditions.
(3) For comparative purposes, the review must include an assessment of how the factors in subsection (2)(a) and (b) would be affected by maintaining corporation tax at a rate no higher than that set out in section 12 until the end of the next parliament.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause requires the Chancellor to conduct a review of how the rate of corporation tax set by the Bill set out in clause 12 affects business investment and certainty, including what the effect would be of capping it at its current level for the next Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 266.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3 - Analysis of the impact of the energy security investment mechanism

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish an analysis of the possible impacts of the energy security investment mechanism on—
(a) revenue from the energy profits levy, and
(b) investment decisions involving businesses liable to pay the energy profits levy.
(2) The analysis under subsection (1) must consider how the impacts in (1)(a) and (1)(b) would be affected by amending the definition of a qualifying accounting period, as set out in section 1 of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, to be one that ends before the end of the next Parliament.
(3) In this section, the “energy security investment mechanism” means the mechanism introduced by section 17A of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, as inserted by section 19 of this Act.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause seeks to establish the impact on revenue and investment decisions of the energy security investment mechanism being introduced, and how this impact would be affected in a scenario where end date for the energy profits levy was amended to be before the end of the next Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 269.
Question accordingly negatived.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill (Clauses 1 to 4, 12 and 13, and 19) reported (Standing Order No. 83D(6)), without amendment, and ordered to lie on the Table.

Business of the House (13 May)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Monday 13 May, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Penny Mordaunt relating to Risk-Based Exclusion not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on that Motion may be entered upon and may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Christopher Chope: We have, I think, another hour and three quarters, or a little longer, in which to debate this motion. The point I want to make at the outset is this: why are we wasting so much valuable sitting time because of the way the Order Paper is being arranged? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who I hope will respond to this short debate, can explain to us how it comes about that we have the best part of two hours to debate this motion, yet the motion states that we have two hours maximum to debate a much more important motion on Monday. That motion is in the name of the Leader of the House and relates to the exclusion of MPs. We had, I think, four amendments tabled to the Finance Bill, but there are already eight amendments tabled to the motion for Monday, which shows that there is quite a lot of interest in it. Those amendments include one from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who wishes us to go back to the situation that pertained in the original motion relating to the risk-based exclusion of MPs.
The original proposal was that Members could be excluded just on the grounds of suspicion. I tabled amendments against that proposal, together with colleagues, and it is to the credit of the Leader of the House that she has come back with a revised motion that makes it clear that exclusion would not begin to apply unless or until somebody had been charged with a violent or sexual offence.

Julian Lewis: As one of the colleagues who signed my hon. Friend’s suggested amendment, I found alarming the suggestion that an MP could be suspended on the basis of an allegation. It does not require much imagination to see certain circumstances in which an MP could be targeted by someone making a serious allegation with no factual underpinning whatsoever, and then having to be suspended. It is astonishing, frankly, that we could be put into such a situation on so flimsy a basis.

Christopher Chope: I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for supporting my amendments to the original motion. I am sure that it will be of concern to him that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) has tabled amendment (h) for debate on Monday, which would effectively take us back to the original motion by suggesting that, instead of having to be charged, a Member would only have to be arrested on suspicion of committing an offence in order to be excluded from this House.

Jess Phillips: On the previous intervention, I do not know how many rape, sexual violence or violence arrests the right hon. Member  for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) have handled, but an arrest does not happen on the basis of “flimsy” allegations; it takes weeks. I just put that on the record, as someone who deals with this week in, week out. The idea that somebody gets arrested just on someone’s say-so is for the birds.

Nigel Evans: Before we resume this debate, I point out that the motion before us is incredibly narrow. I fear that we may be having the debate that we will have on Monday, and we do not want that. This is just about the amount of time that will be allocated. The debate that we are sort of having now is really for Monday.

Christopher Chope: I take that point absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think we have already had a taste, from the couple of interventions, of the fact that this is a controversial subject, for which two hours of debate on Monday is inadequate. The purpose of this debate is to decide whether we believe that a motion limiting debate on Monday to two hours is the right or wrong course, and I would suggest that it is the wrong course.

Julian Lewis: While fully accepting your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that I said nothing about somebody who had been arrested. The original wording to which I objected did not refer to someone having been arrested; it was simply about whether somebody had been accused of something. On the point about someone having been arrested, I might well agree with her interpretation; it would depend on factors such as the bail circumstances.

Christopher Chope: One issue is that people can be arrested and not know whether they will be charged for months, if not years. During that period, they are in limbo and under suspicion, but are, under the principles of justice in this country, innocent until proven guilty. I think it is reasonable, if somebody is charged with an offence, that the matter is moved on, and that their identity is known. However, quite often, people may be arrested and their identity will not be known.
The point I am making is that this is a controversial subject. The new motion that the Leader of the House has brought before us is more in line with what is proposed in the other place, which probably has even more legal wisdom than this House. It decided in a similar debate that it would be wrong to exclude Members from the parliamentary estate on the basis of suspicion or mere arrest, and that a charge was needed. I submit that it is desirable to have consistent rules across the whole parliamentary estate, because people can move freely between the different parts of the estate, so if somebody in the other place is subject to a different regime from somebody in this place, that will create extraordinary anomalies.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: However many hours we spend debating this, is the fundamental problem not that the aim is to do this by motion, rather than by legislation, and that any exclusion of a Member except by a specific vote on that Member needs to be a legislative requirement for attendance of the House, not a mere motion?

Christopher Chope: I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, that point could be made in Monday’s debate without the need to discuss the amendments to which I have been referring, but why are we placing a restriction of two hours on a debate on an issue of such fundamental importance? My right hon. Friend’s point is another reason why we should not support a two-hour restriction on Monday’s debate. I do not really understand why that limit is necessary, because Monday’s Order Paper looks very light, as indeed today’s Order Paper has been. At the moment, just a couple of motions have been tabled, dealing with regulations. Why is it proposed that everybody should again have an early night on Monday, and that we will arbitrarily impose upon ourselves a time limit for debating the important issue of risk-based exclusion?
It is quite a straightforward point. The Leader of the House has tabled the motion and is faced with a number of amendments, including one on a very controversial topic: the issue of whether we should contaminate the whole proxy voting system in this House by allowing somebody who has been charged with a sexual offence to benefit from proxy voting. Why should they be allowed to vote by proxy? What is the justification for that? If somebody is charged with a sexual offence, they would potentially have bail conditions or custody conditions imposed as a consequence, and provided that there are no bail conditions excluding that person from participating in the proceedings of the House, they should be able to continue that participation. Should that not be the natural consequence?
Instead, the motion tabled for Monday proposes that a person would be entitled to a proxy vote in those circumstances. The reason I say that is controversial is because it would contaminate the whole proxy voting system. At the moment, a person with a proxy vote is a person who has a condition—either a medical condition, or they are expecting a baby or are the father of a new baby, and so on.

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s speech is getting to the substance of Monday’s debate. This debate is simply about the business of the House motion before us; it is not about what we are going to be debating next week. Can we be absolutely clear about that? I know that Mr Evans has already made that clear, so I am just reinforcing the point that we need to discuss what is before us, not the substance of next week’s debate.

Christopher Chope: Madam Deputy Speaker, I absolutely agree. My purpose in speaking to this motion today is to try to illustrate by example the scope of the motion that is down for debate on Monday, and why two hours, in my submission, is an inadequate amount of time in which to discuss such a motion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The motion before the House today suggests that Standing Order No. 41A, on deferred Divisions, shall not apply. I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is wise to put before the House motions that randomly suspend Standing Orders, or whether it is not important to maintain the integrity of Standing Orders, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, is clearly a legitimate part of today’s motion.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes another very good point. We know that the Leader of the House—and he is a distinguished former Leader of the House—has two hats: they act as a member of the Government and on behalf of the Government, but they also defend the rights of Back Benchers to have issues such as this properly debated. That is why I express openly my disappointment that the Leader of the House has chosen to table a motion that would limit the amount of time for debate, instead of providing reasonable time for such a debate, which could be three hours. That would not be unusual, taking into account the complexity of the issues.
To give another example of the complexity of the issue, this has been debated in the House, at business questions, in Committees, and by the House of Commons Commission, for the best part of a year. Why has it taken so long for it to be debated in those forums? Because it is a complex and controversial subject. It just seems to me that such a controversial and complex subject demands more time than has so far been allocated.
However, there is no point in my repeating my points any more, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I certainly do not want to get myself in a position where I cannot be called in the substantive debate on Monday, but I certainly look forward to that debate.

Philip Davies: I will follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who I thought made some fantastic points. However, I want to start by commending the Leader of the House for listening to the previous concerns and coming back with a revised motion. We are particularly grateful that she has been, as my hon. Friend said, a representative of the House. She has listened and come back, and I commend her for it.
None the less, I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that two hours is insufficient for this subject. This is not about the rights of Members of Parliament alone, although obviously it is to some extent. It is mainly about the rights of their constituents, who have a right to be represented in Parliament by the person they elected. The motion—I broadly support what is in it—is designed, in effect, to deliberately restrict the rights of those constituents to have their voice heard in Parliament. That is something that we in this House should interfere with only with great care, and certainly not on the back of a two-hour debate.
With a two-hour debate, by the time the Front Benchers have had a go, set out their stall and all of the rest of it, the time left for Back Benchers is limited. As anyone can see, the motion that has been tabled is quite extensive, with a number of different paragraphs, and eight amendments have been tabled, as my hon. Friend has said. If Front Benchers want to set out their views on the motion and address the amendments, how much time will Back Benchers get to speak? I suspect it will not be very long at all.
We are not really going to have time for a debate, but I think we saw earlier—through the exchanges of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—that there is quite a significant debate to be had, and people will have strong opinions on different  sides of the argument. The whole point of being here is that we have a debate, and surely we can all see from this timetable that we are not going to have time for a proper debate. That cannot be right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made this point about the business on Monday. I have no idea how long debate will last on the various regulations down for debate on Monday, on public procurement and agriculture, or how many urgent questions and statements there might be and all the rest of it, but it is not impossible to envisage that those debates will not last very long. We could be in the absurd situation where we have business on a Monday that is supposed to run until 10 o’clock but we rise early because the two-hour limit for this debate has been reached, with hours still to spare. Why on earth would we unnecessarily restrict the debate before the normal end of the sitting day? We should at least make it clear that we can go on until the normal end of the sitting day, if that comes later. Why can the motion not at least make clear that we could carry on until 10 o’clock?

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend emphasise that the debate scheduled for Monday is not any ordinary debate? It is a debate to change the Standing Orders of the House. As was pointed out to me by Enoch Powell when I was first on the Procedure Committee in 1984, in the absence of a written constitution, the Standing Orders of this House are our constitution. Are we really saying that we should change our constitution in a time-limited debate this coming Monday?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In some respects, I am perhaps arguing against my own self-interests here, because the changes that the Leader of the House has made to the motion mean that I am broadly content with it. I would prefer to see certain minor changes that we could perhaps tweak out, but there are probably other Members who do not like the changes that have been instituted since the measure last appeared before the House. Their opportunity to speak against those changes will now be severely curtailed, and that is unfortunate to say the least.
I simply ask that the Leader of the House think again about this measure. We can all see that two hours is not an adequate amount of time. There is scope to have more time for this debate on something that is of great importance to the rights of Members of Parliament, but mainly to their constituents, who want to be represented in this House by the people they have elected and for that to be curtailed only where necessary. I hope that the Leader of the House will indicate that she will not move this motion today, withdraw it and think again.

Penny Mordaunt: The motion before us this evening protects time for the debate on risk-based exclusion on Monday 13 May. It also ensures that any amendments selected by Mr Speaker can be dealt with at the conclusion of the debate. It is an important debate, and we have had a little rehearsal of some of the issues that may come up, and I do listen to colleagues from all parts of the House about the substance, as do my fellow Commissioners, and how much time is allowed for the debate. As I announced last week, the  House will be considering secondary legislation earlier that day. The effect of this motion is to ensure that the debate on risk-based exclusion can take place no matter how late it starts, and it will have a guaranteed amount of time.
Turning to the specific points that have been raised, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned the integrity of Standing Orders. I hope, as recent history shows, that I put great emphasis on that point, having stood at this Dispatch Box and withdrawn my side of this House from taking part in an Opposition Day debate to protect the integrity of our procedures and processes and how Standing Orders operate.
I remind colleagues that this is the second time that the House of Commons Commission has brought this motion forward. I have tabled the motion on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, and this scheme has been arrived at by the House of Commons Commission with input from different political parties and a great deal of consultation. We have already had one debate on this matter that we did not bring to the Floor of the House for a vote. That was a lengthy debate, and we wanted to listen to all sides, and we took forward the issues that had been raised, put them back to the Commission and addressed the points of concern. That is why this amendment has come back in this form. In addition to that, all members of the Commission—the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who is in her place opposite me, and others—have taken time to talk to many colleagues both in this place and in the other place about concerns and suggestions they have for the scheme.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not think that what the motion aims to do is wrong, but I am concerned that we are using Standing Orders as a means of determining who can attend the House. We have never done that before. Either attendance at the House has been set out in legislation or an individual Member has been excluded from the House. Therefore, however much time we allow for the debate, we are allowing time for the wrong thing. If my right hon. Friend wants to go down this route, she should bring forward legislation, with a timetable motion for that legislation, rather than using Standing Orders in this way.

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which he has taken the time to make today and can of course make in the debate on Monday. He has not previously raised that point with me—I do not know whether he has spoken to the usual channels or other members of the Commission—but we have consulted and spoken to many colleagues about the motion.
This is the business of the House, and we are going to bring forward the debate. My right hon. Friend will know that this topic has been raised frequently at business questions and that Members are eager that the motion is brought forward. We have the debate on Monday. This motion will protect the time. I look forward to hearing from other colleagues. As the hon. Member for Manchester Central and I, along with Mr Speaker and other members of the Commission, have demonstrated, we will always listen to colleagues’ concerns.
Question put and agreed to.

Petitions

Petition - Road network in Torridge and West Devon

Geoffrey Cox: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 4,000 of my constituents concerning the road network in Torridge and West Devon. Devon has the largest road network of any county at 8,000 miles. It has many unclassified and unnumbered roads serving isolated communities. While the substantial sums provided in recent Budgets are welcome, the patchwork repair of our roads is not the answer. The petitioners seek a predictable provision over the next five years to enable  a planned scheme of comprehensive road repairs.
The petition states:
“Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges HM Government to reallocate funds to Devon County Council to facilitate a comprehensive scheme of road improvements, including to improve the condition of unclassified or classified unnumbered roads which are vital for rural communities in Torridge and West Devon, as well as to prevent further, avoidable disrepair.
And your petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The humble petition of the people of Torridge and West Devon,
Sheweth, that Devon has the largest road network of any county, encompassing more than 8,000 miles; further that more than 5.77 billion vehicle miles were travelled on Devon’s road network in 2022; further that many of these roads are unclassified or classified unnumbered and while acknowledging the welcome additional one-off grants of an extra £27 million in 2020/21 and of £9.4 million allocated to Devon County Council in the Spring Budget (2023); notes that the established funding model does not keep pace with the requirements of Torridge and West Devon’s road network and that some of its roads, particularly the unclassified and classified unnumbered roads serving market towns and villages, after recent severe winters and rains, are in a state of dilapidation.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges HM Government to reallocate funds to Devon County Council to facilitate a comprehensive scheme of road improvements, including to improve the condition of unclassified or classified unnumbered roads which are vital for rural communities in Torridge and West Devon, as well as to prevent further, avoidable disrepair.
And your petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
[P002956]

Petition - Youth Mobility Scheme

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition relating to the youth mobility scheme on behalf of the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk. One of the great constitutional injustices was the removal of Scotland from the EU against the wishes of the Scottish people by this Parliament. That situation has been compounded by the Government’s rejection of a youth mobility scheme, which would have made it easier for our young people to live, to work and to study across Europe.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to show a willingness to negotiate with the European Commission on re-opening these opportunities for our young people.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares regret that the UK Government has rejected an EU-wide youth mobility scheme that would make it easier for our young people to live, study and work across the EU, as well as remove barriers to young EU citizens coming here to fill vital employment gaps.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to show a willingness to negotiate with the European Commission on re-opening these opportunities for our young people.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002974]

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Tonia Antoniazzi: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Gower regarding the recommendations on the infected blood scandal. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of all those affected, and to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has led the fight for justice and accountability here in this House.
Two victims of this scandal die every week. Those infected and affected have already waited far too long for justice, and the Government continue to delay. We need action. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Gower,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002975]

Coastal Communities: East Devon

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Richard Foord: I would like to talk about the east Devon coastline and some of the communities that are represented by two MPs—one for a constituency of the same name, and me, the MP for Tiverton and Honiton. The constituency I represent includes the coastal towns and villages of Seaton, Beer, Branscombe and Axmouth. My comments will relate mostly to those communities, although I cannot avoid referring to a town in the current East Devon constituency. I have notified the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) that I will refer to his constituency, given that some of the east Devon infrastructure that I will refer to affects people I represent. Last July and August, I carried out a summer tour of the villages and towns that I represent. As well as taking in some of the larger settlements such as Beer and Colyton, I visited coastal villages like Branscombe and Uplyme. I will mention some of the points that were made to me in the debate.
Before 2022, the Honiton constituency had not been represented by anyone other than a Conservative MP for over 150 years. Why do I raise that in a debate on Government support for communities on the east Devon coastline? I suggest that that Conservative rule of more than a century and a half helps to explain why there has been a tendency by the Conservatives to take east Devon for granted. The National Audit Office estimates that in the decade before 2022, the real spending power of English councils was reduced by 29%. That represented the removal of £10 billion of spending power. The levelling-up funding that replaced it represents less than half that amount.
If properly funded, local government can play a key role in helping our communities to thrive, yet the Government’s levelling-up fund is an inefficient way to support local initiatives, leading to lots of nugatory work from already stretched council officers. Most councils have reached the limits of what can be achieved from efficiency savings. Further cuts will have to come from core services that are valued by the communities that councils serve, such as non-statutory services like public toilets, leisure centres and bus routes. The approach undermines local decision making and local democracy. Decisions about what to fund are made by bureaucrats in Whitehall, who are remote from the people affected by their decisions. Rather than devolving power, as the Liberal Democrats would, this move has further concentrated power here in London.

Simon Jupp: I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. He makes a point about levelling-up funding; of course, we have had success with that in my East Devon constituency, which includes the town of Exmouth. What does he make of the fundamental fact that East Devon District Council had the opportunity to apply for money to support the swimming pools—in fact, I was asked to campaign for that money—but then was the only council in the county not to apply for any funding for our swimming pools, which includes an independent pool in his constituency in Axminster? Was it not a huge disappointment that the opportunity was there and was not grasped by our council? What a let down!

Richard Foord: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to talk up the great work that goes on in our leisure facilities in east Devon. As he says, the Flamingo pool in Axminster is brilliant; I take my daughter swimming there, and the volunteers who work there are fantastic. Given that he not only knows the Flamingo pool but has LED Community Leisure facilities in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will know that we must do everything we can to help local authorities to apply for any funding that is available.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. Does he recognise the good work that levelling-up funding has done, and the fact that so many people and many councils can take advantage of it? Does he also endorse the view that whatever party may be in government in the future, it should be an integral part of the funding structure of every council in the United Kingdom?

Richard Foord: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of 500 bids for levelling-up funding, only 111 were successful, and I am mindful of the 389 that involved so much work on the part of council officers. The Minister may correct me if I have got the number slightly wrong, but that is my understanding. We should remember that councils are not well staffed; in fact, they have many vacancies, because they are constantly having to cut staff numbers.
When the Conservatives talked of levelling up in their 2019 manifesto, they were talking to communities that were crying out for just that, but many of the east Devon coastal communities that I represent have been disappointed. Let me draw an analogy with a cream tea. In Devon, if someone talks about adding toppings to a scone, we immediately think “cream first”, and when someone talks about levelling up, we immediately think “investment in our communities”. Little did we know that in both cases, what the Conservatives actually meant was “jam tomorrow”.
The Government’s approach of encouraging councils to use reserves and capital receipts to subsidise their revenue expenditure is unsustainable. Let us take, for example, the recent use by Devon County Council of £7.8 million of clawback money, which it had received from BT in connection with the provision of broadband internet. Rather than using that money as intended—to extend the provision of broadband to rural areas—the council used it to close its deficit. That got it through the 2023-24 financial year, but what will happen next March when there is no payout from BT, and what will happen to the thousands of my constituents who struggle to access the internet, which in the 21st century is an essential utility?
In the first round of levelling-up funding, the south-west region was ranked ninth out of 12 regions of the UK for the amount of funding received. It amounted to just £23 per person, which is less than the price of a single railway ticket from Honiton to Plymouth. We might as well buy a round of ice creams with the money, given how far levelling-up funding for east Devon will not stretch. The west country received less than 8% of all levelling-up funding from round 1. Even London received more than half that proportion, despite the fact that it was London’s levels of wealth and infrastructure to which other regions of the UK were supposed to be levelled up.
Given that we are talking about the coast, let me draw another analogy, this time with building sandcastles. If my eldest child had a bucketful of sand and my youngest child had half a bucket, I would expect levelling up to enable them both to have full buckets with which to make grand sandcastles. Instead, what we seem to have found under this Conservative Government is that levelling up has meant that children have to make sandcastles on east Devon’s beaches by half-filling their buckets, and anyone who lives locally will know that that will be with pebbles. If we are lucky, central Government will give us a flag to go on top, provided that we accept that the flag will have to have a blue tree on it.
East Devon District Council has submitted a bid in each round of the levelling-up fund since I have been the MP for Tiverton and Honiton. Had it been successful, the bid for the Axe valley would have supported £15 million-worth of projects. It would have transformed Seaton seafront and provided new opportunities for decent jobs. East Devon District Council was looking to provide three new employment sites: in Colyford Road and Harepath Road in Seaton, and at Cloakham Lawns in Axminster. Together, these could have provided around 3,000 square metres of employment space and created up to 140 decent jobs for local communities. However, rather than choosing this proposal or, indeed, the absolutely essential proposal for a town centre relief road in Cullompton, which was submitted by Mid Devon District Council, the Government chose to support Dinan Way in Exmouth. I do not doubt the merits of that proposal, but the costs of Dinan Way have ballooned.
Devon County Council’s cabinet met earlier today. It considered a successful bid to round 1 of the Government’s levelling-up fund, which awarded over £15.5 million for Destination Exmouth. East Devon District Council put in additional funding, as did other local councils, making a local contribution of £1.75 million. We learned today that the gateway project around the station in Exmouth will not go ahead, and that roughly £4.4 million that had been earmarked for schemes to help with active travel will be shelved. Instead, the more than £4 million will be rolled into the cost of the bypass in Dinan Way to offset the inflation that we have seen since the bid was submitted. If decisions around that investment had been made locally, we might have made different decisions, and we may have prioritised the funding and investment differently.
An increasing proportion of east Devon’s communities are older, which is particularly true of coastal towns and villages. An ageing population is increasing the complexity of the care required. In Sir Chris Whitty’s “Chief Medical Officer’s Annual Report: Health in an Ageing Society”, published last October, he wrote specifically about the tendency of older people to retire and move to coastal areas, such as east Devon. He said:
“We’ve really got to get serious about the areas of the country where ageing is happening very fast, and we’ve got to do it now. It’s possible to compress the period of time that people spend in ill health...because otherwise we will end up with large numbers of people leading much more dependent lives.”
His report says:
“Providing services and environments suitable for older adults in these areas is an absolute priority”.
Sir Chris Whitty says that, specifically, we need policies to reduce disease and disability, and to help people to exercise, eat well and stay fit.
A report written in February this year by Beccy Baird from the King’s Fund calls for a radical refocusing of health and care, with primary care and community services at its core. It says that
“progress has been hampered by an incorrect belief that moving care into the community will result in short-term cash savings. Other factors include a lack of data about primary and community services leading to a ‘cycle of invisibility’”.
Baird talks about
“urgent challenges such as A&E waiting times and planned care backlogs becoming the priority for politicians tempted by quick fixes instead of fundamental improvement.”
In the face of that, the proposed closure of one whole wing of Seaton Hospital makes absolutely no sense to me or the constituents I represent, as I have said to various Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, and to the Prime Minister himself at Prime Minister’s questions.
How can we expect this Conservative Government to level up in respect of complicated services, such as health and social care, if they cannot even level up potholes? The annual local authority road maintenance—or ALARM—report reveals that the average cost of filling in a pothole is £46, which rises to over £70 for a pothole that is filled on a reactive basis, rather than having been planned. On my summer tour, constituents told me that they see repair vans coming to respond to a request to patch up a single pothole, rather than dealing with the whole road. Round 1 of the levelling-up fund awarded the west country £23 per head. That is the equivalent of half of one pothole filled per person. It is no wonder that when we drive in and out of Devon’s craters, we sometimes think we are on the moon.
I contend that the levelling-up concept was designed to win over marginal seats in the midlands and the north of England in the run-up to the 2019 general election. Following that election, it has become apparent to the Conservatives that their 2019 electoral big tent has been shredded by the successive storms of partygate, the interregnum ruled over by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and the crumbling infrastructure of our coastal communities, including those in east Devon. It will take Liberal Democrat influence in the next Parliament to devolve and restore services to our communities in east Devon.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) for bringing forward this important Adjournment debate about his area.
It might be helpful if I set the scene with a few facts and figures. I understand entirely the difficulty, the tensions and the problems for coastal and rural councils in delivering services. There is an additionality to cost that is often triggered by a heightening of the age demographic, as the hon. Gentleman said, and by the sparsity of communities. These are not great dense conurbations but small, picturesque villages and hamlets. They are attractive and they support our environment and make an area a lovely place in which to live, but  it is not without challenge to deliver public services there. That is being experienced by a lot of councils in those areas.
That is why we listened carefully and closely to those who made representations to us during the evolution of the local government funding settlement. Pausing for a moment, I have made the point before to the hon. Gentleman that a record number of Members of Parliament from across the House came to see officials and me during the official consultation process, to advocate in the strongest possible terms on behalf of their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) was one of them, but the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton was not. I politely say to him that if one is serious about trying to effect change, an Adjournment debate is an interesting platform on which to do it, but engagement in the proper channels of communication and consultation can often bring forward better results.

Simon Jupp: Let me run through a list of some successes in our part of Devon. They include: £15.7 million to help level up Exmouth, including the Dinan Way extension, which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned; up to £30 million from South West Water to improve water infrastructure in Sidmouth; £1.4 million to address flooding on the River Sid and River Otter; a new school to replace Tipton St John Primary; our incredible Nightingale Hospital, which is still open and still bringing down waiting lists in my constituency; and, up the line in mid-Devon, which the hon. Gentleman sometimes pretends he represents, Cullompton is getting a new railway station. Meanwhile, Lib Dem-led East Devon District Council failed even to apply for funding for swimming pools, even though it asked me to campaign for it. It is the Lib Dems who are failing the south-west, not the Conservatives.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Maybe the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is the sort of bloke who complains that he did not win the lottery even though he did not buy a ticket. How could he be expected to win the lottery? You have to be in it to win it.
Of course, not every council bid is going to be successful, but as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the dynamic effect of levelling up across the United Kingdom is being felt across communities, many of which had felt left behind, ignored, undervalued—call it what you will—by successive Governments of all stripes. If one talks to those in communities that are benefiting directly from the levelling-up initiative, the shared prosperity fund, the future high streets fund and others, there is a real sense of excitement about what can be done in partnership with the local authority, local businesses and the Government to deliver beneficial change.
Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon for setting out with such clarity the projects that have been delivered or part-funded, I am slightly annoyed, because he has stolen quite a lot of my remarks. He was a very distinguished local journalist, whose calls I used to relish taking—anything to get my views and thoughts on some local issue on the record. I now quiver slightly when my telephone rings and I see his name flashing, because I know he will ask for further things for his part of Devon and the wider  county. He advocates at the heart of Government to ensure that his constituents and others, including those of Tiverton and Honiton, see the benefit of the UK Government’s commitment to levelling up.
We listened to local government and offered an additional £600 million in the local government finance settlement; I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is aware of that. East Devon District Council saw an increase in core spending power of 5.9%, making available a total of £17.4 million for 2024-25. Mid Devon District Council saw an increase of 5.9%, making available a total of £11.6 million, and the county got an increase in core spending power of 7.8%, which is an additional £56.8 million, making available a total of up to £788.8 million for Devon County Council in 2024-25. We have invested £15 billion in a suite of complementary levelling-up projects to help grow the economy, create jobs, improve transport, provide skills training and support local businesses. Perhaps more powerful than even those things, as powerful and efficacious as they are, is the civic pride that the investment lights up in areas such as his—a pride in seeing what can be done, and starting a process that, if successful and guided and managed well, can provide no end of opportunities.

Richard Foord: Given the sorts of enterprises that the Minister just described levelling-up funding as being about, can he explain the decision to invest £50,000 in stone chess tables in north-west England?

Simon Hoare: There is a rubric for taking decisions. The Department’s levelling-up initiative is, of course, handled by the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young). Each scheme is judged against fixed criteria; if it meets those criteria, it goes into the next round and can ultimately be successful.
I am afraid that I am not in a position to comment on individual schemes, whether successful or not, or on why they have been successful or not. That is something that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton would need to take up with the Under-Secretary, who always makes himself available to colleagues from across the House to discuss the exciting levelling-up initiative.
By my figures, £94.5 million of levelling-up funding has been allocated to Devon, excluding through legacy programmes, and that is in addition to significant long-term devolved funding and powers that we estimate to be worth up to £27 million, so I dispute as a matter of core principle the idea that the hon. Gentleman was trying to posit in my mind, and the mind of the House, that this Government and my party take for granted his part of Devon, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon—or indeed any other seat where we have a long history of representation. The Conservative party is a one nation party or it is nothing. We represent the views and aspirations of millions of people. It is why we have been the most successful political party, trying to do our best where we can for all our communities.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the terms of reference for levelling up have evolved since it was instigated. It was initially seen as primarily the preserve of post-industrial northern towns, but increasingly we see its power in our rural and coastal communities too. I have set out the figures on Devon’s success with levelling-up proposals; the county is doing incredibly  well. Some £16 million in round-two levelling-up funding has been allocated for Destination Exmouth, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon mentioned. East Devon District Council received £1.8 million from the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund. East Devon will also benefit from the fact that the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership was the recipient of £35.4 million from the Getting Building Fund programme for 2020 to 2022. The community ownership fund has been very powerful in areas such as the hon. Gentleman’s, as it has in mine. It supports initiatives that are of value, including sport centres, arts venues and precious community spaces.
The hon. Gentleman lost me, I have to say, in his speech. At first, I was building sandcastles with half a bucket. He then told us that the beach I was on had pebbles, so that would be a pebble castle, not a sandcastle. I was not entirely sure whether I was putting my jam or the cream on the top or the bottom of the scone. I confess, as I represent the Blackmore vale, the land of the small dairies as described by Thomas Hardy, that I always view cream as a substitute for butter. It is the glue that holds down the jam, so one always puts the cream on first, and tops it with jam, not the other way around. I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman was putting his cream or his jam, but I hope he was not putting it on his children or the beach, or in their buckets or all over their spades.
We then had the ad hominem comments about how life is always so much better under the Liberal Democrats, these little rays of buoyant sunshine that fleetingly shine through the clouds of the south-west from time to time, only to disappear behind the broken promises of their tuition fee pledge—and I have little or no doubt that the same will happen again.
This debate allows me to mention something else. I appreciate that this is nothing to do per se with the hon. Gentleman, but he extolled to the House, as his party often does, the sanctity of the Liberal Democrats, who have some sort of higher public calling. We had elections to Dorset Council last week, a neighbouring authority. A lot of people were saying to me how much better the roads are in Dorset than in Devon; we are very happy to exchange contractor details if necessary. One of the most distasteful aspects of last week’s campaign was that a senior member of the hon. Gentleman’s party—the leader, I am told, of a neighbouring authority—spent quite a lot of time telling people, on the doorstep,  that a Conservative party candidate had stage 4 lung cancer, was unlikely to see his term out, and would possibly not be as attentive as possible to his public duties as a result of having to receive chemotherapy.
That gentleman, who had served his community steadfastly for years, lost his seat. That is the democratic process, and I make no complaint about it. However, I have to say something that, by God, I have been waiting some years to say this from this Dispatch Box: I will take no lessons on the qualitative assessment, usually self-made by those in the hon. Gentleman’s party, that somehow it is better than mine in instinct and delivery, and in its definition of “public service”. What I have just relayed to the House has come from more than one reliable source. I just hope that his party enjoys its temporary victory in Dorset Council; I am not entirely sure that it is the sort of victory I would have enjoyed.
Let me turn back to the matters at hand. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman has spoken for his community, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I hope that I have given him, the House, his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon the figures and facts. I absolutely underscore our commitment to the hon. Gentleman’s area, to the whole south-west, and to any and all of our communities in the UK where need is identified, and where the good offices of His Majesty’s Government can be deployed to help things along.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the local government funding settlement in the round being more bespoke and digital, rather than analogue; it must also take account of the times and demands, given that, as he and I have discussed, there has been a change in the demographics in his part of Devon and elsewhere in the south-west. We are committed to doing just that in the next Parliament. If I am in post then, I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House. If, cross party, we can find a solution that holds water, can withstand scrutiny and can sustain local government, and all the good work that it seeks to do, for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, rather than having short-term fixes, the landscape of local government and public service delivery for our communities will be very much improved. I hope that my reply has been of help to him, and of interest to his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.